Bap 


B6t 


/ 

CL 

1 

f 

.2 

JC 

Q. 

4 

-a 

03 

^ 

IE 

CL 

*S>     fe" 

o 

to 

£ 

^    s 

c 

1 

<*        o 

bfl 

. 

&     8 

"75 

=3 

E 

.^ 

^              « 

00 

^1 

"*■*              fk 

. 

^ 

*** 

S 

cq 

o 

>■, 

si 

ja 

<i 

•& 

T3 

^ 

% 

C 

£ 

% 

(/> 

a> 

CL 

t 

SC  -S  n 

/ 

/d^/r 

Ci\ 

I 

TREATISE 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 


IN    FOUR    PARTS; 


RELATING    TO    THE    MODE    OF  BAPTISM;   TO  THE   SUBJECTS 
TO    THE    IMPORT,    DESIGN,    AND    USES    OF    INFANT 

baptism;  and  to  close  communion. 


BY  ENOCH  POND, 

Professor  of  Tlieology  in  the  Theol.  Sem.,  Bangor,  Me. 


BOSTON: 
PEIRCE    &    PARKER,    CORNHILL. 

MDCCCXXXIII. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1S33,  by 

Peir'ce  and  Parkxr, 
ia  the  Clerk's   Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


1 


< 


PREFACE 


Several  years  ago,  the  author  of  the  following  pages 
published  "  A  Treatise  on  the  Mode  and  Subjects  of 
Baptism,  in  two  Parts,"  in  reply  to  a  Sermon  by  Mr. 
Judson,  on  the  same  subject.  This  Treatise  was  ex- 
tensively circulated,  and  I  am  not  aware  that  any  an- 
swer to  it  has  appeared.  It  has  been  my  intention,  for 
some  time  past,  to  revise  this  work  ;  throw  out  of  it 
every  thing  directly  and  personally  controversial ; 
strengthen  the  positions  assumed  in  it  by  new  facts 
and  arguments,  such  as  have  occurred  in  subsequent 
reading  and  reflection ;  extend  the  discussion  to  other 
connected  topics  ;  and  put  the  whole  into  a  shape  to  be 
more  permanently  useful.  To  the  accomplishment  of 
this  design  I  have  been  frequently  urged  by  respected 
brethren,  ministers  and  others  ;  but  have  not  been  able 
to  attend  to  it  until  now. 

I  shall  be  disappointed  and  grieved,  if  the  tendency 
of  what  I  have  here  written  shall  be  to  excite  feelings 
of  asperity  and  promote  dissensions  between  Orthodox 
Baptists  and  Pedobaptists.  These  denominations  of 
Christians,  especially  in  New  England,  are  united  in 
most  points  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  and  are  so  near- 
ly allied,  in  many  ways,  as  to  render  alienation  and 
bitterness  altogether  inexcusable.     As  to  the  principles 


IV  PREFACE. 


and  modes  of  church  government,  both  are  in  general 
Congregationalists ;  and  in  their  views  of  doctrine,  and 
manner  of  preaching,  and  in  labors  to  promote  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,  they  harmonize  almost  as  well  as 
the  members  of  either  denomination  do  among  them- 
selves. They  have,  in  most  respects,  the  same  hopes, 
and  fears,  and  dangers,  and  interests, — while  the  sin- 
gle point  of  disagreement  \ajthe  subject  of  Baptism — 
a  subject,  to  be  sure,  of  very  considerable  importance, 
but  not,  in  the  judgment  of  either  party,  essential  to 
salvation.  Between  brethren  so  situated,  there  obvi- 
ously ought  to  be  a  good  understanding,  and  as  much 
union  and  affection  as  possible ;  and  all  methods  should 
be  taken,  riot  to  increase  asperities,  but  to  allay  them  ; 
not  to  magnify,  bat  to  diminish  find  remove  remaining 
differences  of  opinion,  so  far  at  least  as  they  arc  a  hin- 
drance to  good  fellowship,  and  to  the  mutual  exercisi 
of  Christian  love. 

But  in  what  manner  shall  these  differences  of  opin- 
ion be  treated,  so  as  to  secure  this  important  end?  Can 
they  be  burled  in  silence,  shut  out  cf  sight,  and  in  this 
way  lose  their  interest,  and  be  forgotten  ?  I  have  no 
confidence  that  such  a  course  of  procedure  will  be 
adopted,  or  that  such  a  result  can  be  realized  :  For,  in 
the  first  place,  our  Baptist  brethren  manifest  no  dispo- 
sition to  bury  their  peculiarities  in  silence ;  and,  sec- 
ondly, the  subject  does  not  seem  to  be  of  a  nature  to  be 
disposed  of  in  this  way.  It  is  one  of  daily  concern  and 
practice, — which  must  necessarily  lead  to  thought  and 
inquiry, — and  these  will  lead  to  conversation  and  dis- 
cussion. Discussion,  then,  there  must  be,  in  some 
form  ;  and  the  only  question  to  be  determined  is,  as  to 
the  form  which  it  shall  assume,  and  the  manfler  in 


PREFACE.  T 

which  it  shall  be  conducted.  Of  angry  discussion — of 
vapid  and  sarcastic  declamation,  carried  on  for  the  pur- 
pose of  gratifying  a  party  and  securing  a  triumph, 
there  has  been  enough,  and  more  than  enough,  alrea- 
dy. May  such  warfare  come  to  a  final  end.  But 
much  as  has  been  written  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  I 
see  no  reason  to  despair  of  the  influence  of  discussion, 
kindly,  calmly,  critically  conducted,  with  a  view  to  dis- 
cover, and  a  disposition  to  receive,  the  truth.  At  least, 
I  see  no  other  way  in  which  the  differences  between- 
Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  are  likely  ever  to  be  adjusted. 

In  respect  to  the  manner  in  Which  the  discussion  of 
disputed  points  is  conducted  in  the  following  pages,  the 
religious  public  will  decide.  That  I  have  expressed 
ray  views,  in  general,  strongly,  and  written  like  a  man 
in  earnest,  I  acknowledge.  I  should  have  been  unjust 
to  my  subject,  and  to  my  own  convictions,  if  I  had 
done  otherwise.  But,  if  I  have,  in  any  instance,  mis- 
represented my  brethren  who  differ#from  me,  or  treated 
them  unkindly,  or  their  arguments  unfairly,  or  in  any 
way  given  them  needless  pain  ;  I  shall  feel  that  I  have 
injured  myself  more  than  them,  and  shall  be  ready,  on 
conviction,  to  make  all  the  reparation  in  my  power. 

The  subject  of  the  third  part  of  the  following  Trea- 
tise has  been  with  me  in  years  past,  as  I  fear  it  has 
been  with  not  a  few  of  my  brethren,  comparatively  an 
untrodden  field.  It  certainly  is  a  subject  of  great  im- 
portance, and  one  demanding  increased  and  prayerful 
attention.  I  have  endeavored  to  examine  it,  uncom- 
mitted to  any  theory  or  hypothesis,  and  with  no  object 
in  mind  but  merely  to  understand  and  explain  the 
Scriptures.  The  views  I  have  expressed,  I  am  satis- 
fied, are  not  far  from  the  truth.     In  regard  to  this  part 


V1  PREFACE. 

of  the  subject,  however,  I  must  throw  myself  on  the 
candor  of  my  brethren,  and  shall  be  glad  of  any  sug- 
gestions which  they  may  offer. 

The  subject  of  close  communion  I  should  not  have 
touched  in  this  connexion,  could  I  have  been  satisfied, 
without  doing  it,  to  have  laid   down  my  pen.     What- 
ever may  be  the  result  in  regard  to  other  points  of  dif- 
ference between  Orthodox  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists,  I 
do  feel  that  it  is  high  time  that  close  communion  was 
done  away.     In   this   nineteenth  century,  and  within 
sight  (as  we  hope)  of  the  latter  day  glory,  it  does  seem 
that  persons,  who  acknowledge  each  other  as  true  be- 
lievers and  members  of  the  church  of  Christ-who  are 
embarked  in  the  same  great  cause  and  aiming  at  the 
same  results-who  associate  in  many  ways  as  minis- 
.  tore  and  private  brethren-who  agree  in  all  the  funda- 
mentals of  godliness,  and  differ  only  in  regard  to  one  of 
the  rites  of  Christianity ; -it  does  indeed   seem  that 
such  persons  ought  to  be  able  to  commune  together  at 
least  occasionally,  at  the  table  of  the  Lord.     I  am  sat 
isfied  that  the  course  of  events   now  in  progress  is 
strongly  tending  to  expose  and  remove  close  commun- 
ion ;  and  that  the  practice  cannot  be  much  longer  re- 
tained without  merited  injury  and  disgrace. 

The  work,  such  as  it  is,  I  would  in  conclusion  com- 
mit to  those  into  whose  hands  it  may  fall ;  only  claim- 
ing for  myself  the  credjt  of  upright  intentions,  while  I 
cheerfully  leave  the  event  with  Him  who  is  head  over- 
all  things  to  His  people. 
Bangor,  March  15,  1833. 


V 


A   TREATISE*  &c. 


r^. 


PART  I. 


ON  THE  MODE  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Before  any  thing  be  offered  on  the  mode  of  baptism, 
with  a  view  to  reconcile  differences  between  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists,  it  is  important  that  the  point  in  debate 
should  be  accurately  stated  and  rightly  understood.  The 
question  between  the  two  denominations  is  not,  whether 
immersion  is  valid  baptism :  This  we  admit.  Nor  is  it, 
whether  this  mode  of  administering  baptism  is  •preferable 
to  any  other :  For  we  are  willing  that  those  in  our  church- 
es who  prefer  immersion  should  be  gratified.  Nor  is  it, 
whether  immersion  has  been  a  frequent  mode  of  I 
in  some  past  ages :  For  this  we  do  not  deny. — I  do  not 
say  that  neither  of  these  points  is  questionable ;  but  neith- 
er of  them  is- die  precise  question  in  dispute. 

The  point  at  issue  is,  in  few  words,  this  : — Is  immer- 
sion essential  to  the  ordinance  ?  Our  Baptist  breth- 
ren contend  that  it  is.  They  tell  us  that  the  idea  of  im- 
mersion enters  into  the  very  "  nature  of  baptism  ;  that  tbe 
terms  baptism  and  immersion  are  equivalent  and  inter- 
changeable."* "  The  meaning  of  the  word  (baptize)  is 
always  the  same,  and  it  alioays  signifies  to  dip.  It  never 
has  any  other  meaning."i     All  Baptists  hold,  that  there 

"  Judson's  Sermon,  p.  14.    t  Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  pp.  13,  83. 
2 


14  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

can  be  no  baptism  without  immersion  ;  that  this  is  essen" 
tial  to  the  ordinance.  To  this  point,  therefore,  all  their 
reasonings  ought  to  tend.  Whatever  they  may  offer  to 
show  that  immersion  is  a  valid  rode  of  baptism  ;  or  even 
the  most  proper  mode;  or  that  it  was  frequently  practised 
in  ancient  times,  has  no  direct  bearing  on  the  controver- 
sy, and  no  tendency  to  bring  it  to  a  close.  Let  them 
prove,  what  we  deny,  that  immersion  is  essential  to  bap- 
tism— so  essential  that  there  can  be  no  baptism  without  it, 
and  our  differences  on  the  subject  are  at  an  end. 

And  here,  obviously,  the  burden  of  proof  lies  upon 
them.  Theirs  is  the  laboring  oar.  It  is  not  necessary 
for  us  to  urge  one  argument  to  prove  the  negative  of  the 
proposition  in  debate;  it  is  incumbent  on  them  to  prove 
the  affirmative. 

I  am  willing,  however,  to  waive  any  advantage  which 
might  arise  from  acting  merely  on  the  defensive.  There 
should  be  no  special  pleading — no  dispute  for  victory  on 
either  side.  After  long  and  patient  examination,  I  am 
satisfied  that  immersion  is  not  essential  to  baptism,  and 
shall  proceed  to  offer  reasons  in  support  of  this  opinion. 

1.  The  rite  of  immers'ion  is  not  calculated  for  univer- 
sal practice.  It  cannot  be  administered  with  piudence 
and  convenience,  if  indeed  it  can  be  administered  at  all,  in 
all  situations  and  to  all  persons.  Portions  of  the  earth 
have  been  discovered,  and  are  inhabited,  where  collec- 
tions of  water  sufficient  for  this  mode  of  baptizing  might 
not  once  occur  in  travelling  hundreds  of  miles.  There 
are  other  portions,  where,  amidst  mountains  of  ice  and 
almost  perpetual  snow,  immersions  must  be  vf>ry  inconve- 
nient and  imprudent,  if  not  impracticable.  Yet  the  re- 
ligion of  Christ  will  one  day  penetrate  these  arid,  and 
these  frozen  regions.  Their  inhabitants  will  be  baptized 
in  thn  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  Will 
they  be  immersed  1    Were  thousands  to  come  forward 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  15 

together,  in  either  of  the  situations  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred, (and  such  a  season  of  ingathering  has  once  been 
witnessed  under  the  gospel,)  would  they,  could  they  be 
immersed  ?     The  thing  speaks  for  itself.* 

We  may  suppose  another  case  of  frequent  occurrence. 
A  person  in  a  declining  state  of  health  is  brought  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth/  and  wishes  to  obey  his  Lord's 
commands.  He  wishes  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  and  to  come  to  his  table.  But  in  his  circumstan- 
ces, to  be  immersed  is  perhaps  impossible.  He  dares  not 
attempt  it.  He  might  not  survive  tlie  administration. 
Hence,  on  the  ground  of  exclusive  immersion,  he  is  ef- 
fectually debarred  from  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel.  He 
can  never  receive  Christian  baptism,  or  partake  of  the 
memorials  of  his  Saviour's  death.  Can  it  be,  then,  that 
the  scheme  here  controverted  is  according  to  the  gospel? 
Is  it  likely  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  who  designed  that  his  re- 
ligion should  be  universal,  has  appended  to  it  and  made 
essential  a  rite,  so  ill  fitted  for  universal  practice  ? 

2.  The  signification  of  water  baptism  shows  the  pro- 
priety of  some  other  mode  of  administration  besides  im- 
mersion. Water  baptism  is  a  symbol,  an  emblem  of  spir- 
itual baptism.  It  sets  forth,  by  an  expressive  sign,  the 
cleansing,  purifying  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence, 
the  mode  of  water  baptism  might  be  expected  to  accord 
with 'the  mode  in  which  the  Divine  Spirit  is  represented 
as  descending  upon  the  heart.  But  this  is  uniformly  by 
pouring  or  sprinkling.  "I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  unto 
you."  "  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  on  thy  seed."  "  I  will 
pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh."  "  He  shall  come 
down  like  rain  on  the  mown  grass."  "  I  will  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean."  "  So  shall 
he   sprinkle   many   nations. "t      This    pouring    out    and 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  A. 

f  Prov.  i.  23 ;   Is.  xliv.  3  j  Joel  ii.  28  5   Ps.  lxxii.  6 ;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25  ;  Is. 
Hi.  15 . 


16  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

sprinkling  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  in  Scripture  called  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost, — of  which  water  baptism  is 
the  instituted  sign.  It  seems  evident,  therefore,  that 
pouring  or  sprinkling  must  be  a  proper — not  to  say  the 
most  proper — mode  of  water  baptism. 

The  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  have  attempted 
to  evade  this  argument  in  a  variety  of  ways.  Some  have 
said,  that  none  were  ever  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
except  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  and  that  then  the  Spirit 
was  so  copiously  poured  out,  that  the  disciples  may  be. 
said  to  have  been  immersed  in  it.*  But  not  to  insist  on 
the  absurdity  of  \his  representation — the  Spirit  poured 
upon  the  disciples,  till  they  were  immersed  or  plunged  into 
it ! ! — it  is  certain  that  all  regenerated  persons  have  been 
baptized  with  the  Spirit.  "  By  one  Spirit  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body."     1  Cor.  xii.  13. 

Others  have  said,  that  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit, 
and  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  are  not  the  same  ; — that  the 
Divine  influence  is  first  shed  forth,  and  then  the  believer 
is  plunged  into  it.t  But  this  account  of  the  matter  is  in 
plain  contradiction  to  the  Scriptures.  Our  Saviour  prom- 
ised his  disciples,  just  before  his  ascension,  that  they 
should  "  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days 
hence."  But,  speaking  of  this  same  event,  almost  imme- 
diately after,  he  describes  it  as  "  the  Holy  Ghost  coming 
upon  them."  Peter  also  speaks  of  this  memorable  bap- 
tism with  the  Spirit,  as  a  fulfilment  of  the  prediction  of 
Joel,  "  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh."  Acts 
i.  5,  8,  andii.  17.  So  when  Peter  preached  to  Corneli- 
us and  his  family,  "  the  Holy  Ghost,"  he  says,  "fell  on 
them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning.  Then  remembered  I 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized 
with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  xoith  the  Holy 
Ghost."     Acts  xi.  15.     Moreover,  Paul  represents  the 

*  See  Judson's  Sermon,  p.  8.     t  Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  p.  171, 


MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  17 

baptism  of  the  Spirit,  as  "  the  washing  of  regeneration 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us 
abundantly."  Tit.  iii.  5,6.  In  view  of  passages  such  as 
these,  who  can  avoid  seeing  and  acknowledging,  that  the 
falling,  the  pouring,  the  shedding  forth  of  the  Spirit,  and 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  are  the  same  ? 

It  is  sometimes  urged,  that  baptism  with  water  is  not 
significant  of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  but  rather  of  the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ.     "  We  are  buried  with 
him  in  baptism  into  death."     See  Rom.  vi.  4,  and  Col. 
ii.  12.    But  if  baptism  with  water  is  not  significant  of  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  then  why  are  the  two  baptisms 
placed   by  Christ  in  such  immediate  connexion  ?     "  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."     "  John  truly  baptized 
with   water,   but  ye  shall   be   baptized  with  the   Holy 
Ghost."     John  iii.  5.     Acts  i.  5.     And  why  is  the  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost  spoken  of  at  all  under  the 
figure  of  a  baptism,  if  this  renewal  is  not  the  thing  signi- 
fied, shadowed  forth,  in  literal  baptism  ? — The  passages 
above  referred  to,    in  which   believers   are  said   to  be 
"  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  into  death,"  do  not  seem 
to  me  to  have  any  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism  with 
water.    The  thing  here  spoken  of  is  spiritual  baptism* — 
"  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  • 
Ghost."     In  regeneration,  believers  are  said  "  to  die  unto 
sin."  .  They  are  spiritually  "crucified  with  Christ,"  die 
with   him,  are  buried  with  him,   and  rise  with  him  to 
"  newness  of  life  and  to  new  obedience."     But  what  has 
all  this  to  do  with  the  mode  of  water  baptism  1     And  how 
far  can  it  go  towards  proving  that  a  total  •immersion  in 
water  is  essential  to  the  ordinance  ?t 

*  "  The  Apostle  is  speaking-  of  spiritual  circumcision,  and  spiritual  bap- 
tism."   Judson's  Sermon,  p.  28. 
f  See  Appendix,  Note  B. 
*2 


18  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

3.  The  original  words  used  to  denote  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  do  not  uniformly  signify  immersion. — It  is 
conceded  that  the  controversy  respecting  the  mode  of 
baptism  rests  very  materially  on  the  meaning  of  these 
words.  Says  a  distinguished  Baptist  writer,  "  had  the 
Greek  word  Suttti'qw  been  translated  in  the  English  ver- 
sion of  the  New  Testament,  there  would  have  been  no 
dispute  among  English  readers  concerning  its  import."* 
And  why,  then,  was  not  this  Greek  word  translated  ?  If 
it  has,  as  is  pretended,  one  plain  and  uniform  significa- 
tion, why  was  not  this  signification  given  ?  On  Baptist 
principles,  no  answer  can  be  returned  to  these  inquiries, 
which  will  not  be  a  reflection  on  the  translators.  Will  it 
be  said  that  they  did  not  hww  the  import  of  the  word  ? 
Then  they  were  inadequate  to  their  great  undertaking. 
Will  it  be  said  that  knowing  it,  they  chose  not  to  give  it? 
Then  they  weakly  shrunk  from  the  duty  assigned  them, 
and  are  in  a  measure  chargeable  with  all  the  evil  that  has 
ensued.  Why  was  not  this  Greek  word  translated  ?  On 
the  ground  taken  by  Pedobaptists,  the  whole  matter  is 
plain.  It  was  because  the  translators  knew  of  no  word 
in  our  language,  which  fully  answered  to  it  in  significa- 
tion. They  did  not  render  it  immerse,  because  they 
knew  it  did  not  uniformly  signify  immerse.  And  they 
•did  not  render  it  pour  or  sprinkle,  because  they  knew 
that  such  was  not  its  uniform  signification.  They  chose 
in  most  cases  to  transcribe  the  word,  and  not  transjate  it 
— to  leave  it  as  they  found  _  it— -and  thus  leave  every  one 
at  liberty  to  practise  that  mo'de  of  baptism  which  he  judg- 
ed to  be  right.f     The  fact,  that  not  only  the   translators 

*  Judson's  SermfTn,  p.  3. 

t  Ii  should  be  observed,  that  our  English  translators  have  sometimes' 
translated  the  words  denoting  baptism  ;  and  in  every  instance  have  given 
to  them  the  sense  of  washing.    See  Mark  vii.  4.    Luke  xi.  38.    Heb.  ix.  10. 

In  the  Peshito,  or  old  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament,  BanTiilon 
is  rendered  by  a  word  which  signifies  to  confirm  or  establish. 


MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  19 

of  our  English  Bible,  but  translators  and  lexicographers 
generally,  have  chosen  to  transcribe  rather  than  translate 
this  word,  is  proof  enough  that  they  have  not  considered 
it  as  uniformly  implying  immersion. 

There  are  three  sources  from  which  light  may  be  ob- 
tained in  regard  to  the  signification  of  disputed  terms, 
viz.  etymology,  authority,  and  general  use. 

(1.)  It  appears  from  the  etymology  of  the  word  8ait- 
xitfi),  that  it  does  not  uniformly  denote  immersion.  It  is 
a  derivative  from  $amw — a  word  which,  it  is  now  by  all 
admitted,  does  not  always  signify  immerse. 

Scapula  renders  (Saitta  (inergo,  immergo,  tingo,  lavo,) 
to  immerse,  to  dye,  to  wash. 

Coulon  renders  it  (mergo,  tingo,  abluo)  to  immerse,  to 
dye,  to  cleanse  by  washin 

Ursinus  says,  j-?«nrw  signifies  to  dip,  to  dye,  to  wash,  to 
sprinkle  (abluo,  aspergo.)t 

Keckerman  tells,  us  that  fiamco  signifies,  not  only  to 
dip,  but  also  to  sprinkle  (aspergo.)$ 

But  it  is  needless  to  multiply  authorities,  since  Baptist 
writers  admit  that  Sumco  does  not  uniformly  denote  im- 
mersion. Mr.  Carson  insists,  that  this  word  signifies  to 
dye,  as  well  as  to  dip,  and  ta  dye  or  color  in  any  man- 
ner.^, In  proof  of  this,  he  cites  a  number  of  incontesta- 
ble examples.  A  learned  Baptist,  the  author  of  Letters 
to  Bishop  Hoadly,  also  says,  '.'  that  (?«5ttqj  signifies  to 
sprinkle"  and  that  it  "  is  not  used  in  the  Septuagint  in 
any  one  place  where  the  very  frequent  ceremony  of  wash- 
ing the  whole  body  occurs." || 

It  is  obviously  used  in  a  number  of  places  where  it 
does  not  imply  immersion.  "  The  priest  shall  wet  (3ui!>ti) 
his  finger  uno  tov  alfiarog  with  the  blood."     Lev.  iv.  17. 

*  Lexic.  Homeric.  t  Explic.  Catech.  Pars  ii.  Quest.  69. 

t  Syst.  Theol.  Lib.  iii.  Cap.  8.        §  Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  p.  59. 

||  lb.  pp.  27,  23. 


20  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

"  And  he  (the  priest)  shall  wet  (flaipsi)  his  right  finger 
ano  jov  elulov  with  the  oil."  Lev.  xiv.  16.  "  Wetting 
it  (the  bundle  of  hyssop)  with  the  blood,  flaipavrsg  ano 
tov  al/naTog."  Ex.  xii.  22.  The  preposition  ano,  used 
in  each  of  these  cases,  absolutely  forbids  the  idea  of  im- 
mersion. 

In  Dan.  v.  21,  flamu)  is  rendered  by  our  translators 
was  wet.  "  His  body  (£^«<py)  was  wet  with  the  dew  of 
heaven."  Certainly,  the  body  of  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
not  immersed  in  the  dew. 

In  Ezek.  xxiii.  15,  this  word  is  rendered  dyed.  "  Ex- 
ceeding in  (nagaflamu)  dyed  attire  upon  their  heads." 

Other  Greek  writers  furnish  numerous  examples  in 
which  fiarcTO)  does  not  signify  immerse. 

Sophocles  says  (tfiay/ag  si)  "  thou  hast  well  stained  or 
glutted  thy  sword  ngog  Joyeiwv  otquto)  with  or  by  means 
of  the  Grecian  army."*  The  preposition  ngog  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  idea  of  immersion. 

Callimachus  and  his  commentators  use  fiamw  in  the 
sense  of  uvileoi,  to  draw  up.  "  To-day,  ye  bearers  of 
water,  m  {tamers  draw  up  none."t  Neander,  in  his  note 
on  this  passage,  says,  "  uvttjv  ala  flams  draw  up  the  sea 
water." 

In  Suidas  de  Hierocle  we  have  an  account  of  a  person 
who  was  severely  scourged  before  the  tribunal;  and 
"  while  flowing  with  blood,  (Saifjag)  having  filled  the  hol- 
low of  his  hand,  he  sprinkled  the  judgment  seat."|  He 
surely  could  not  have  immersed  his  hand  in  the  blood  that 
was  flowing  from  his  own  body. 

Hippocrates,  speaking  of  a  certain  liquid,  says,  "  when 
it  drops  upon  the  garments,  (fiamsiai)  they  are  dyed."\ 
Here,  the  word  can  neither  signify  immerse,  nor  dying  by 
immersion.    The  liquid  drops  upon  the  colored  garments. 

*  Ajax  v.  95.  t  Hymn,  in  Lavaer.  Pallad.  45. 

%  In  Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  pp.  26,  60,  61. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  21 

iEschylus  says,  "  This  garment  (eSa^ey)  stained  by 
the  sword  of  iEgisthus,  is  a  witness  unto  me."*  The 
garment  must  have  been  stained  by  the  blood  flowing 
down  over  it.  ■ 

Homer,  in  his  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and  Mice,  says, 
"He  fell,  and  breathed  no  more,  and  the  lake  (ftfunrero) 
was  tinged  with  the  purple  blood. "t  "  What  a  monstrous 
paradox  in  rhetoric,"  says  Mr.  Carson,  "  is  the  figure  of 
the  dipping  of  a  lake  in  the  blood  of-  a  mouse  !  Never 
was  there  such  a  figure.  The  lake  is  not  said  to  be  dip- 
ped in  blood,  but  to  be  di/cd  with  blood." 

Aristophanes  says.,  that  "  Magnes,  an  old  comic  poet 
of  Athens,  used  the  Lydian  music,  and  shaved  his  face, 
{J^anrofiBvog)  smearing  it  with  tawny  washes."  He  did 
not  dip  his  face  into  the  wash,  but  rubbed  the  wash  upon 
his  face. | 

Aristotle  speaks  of  a  substance  which,  "  being  pressed, 
(Junrtt)  staineth  the  hand.")|  Here,  surely,  there  is  no 
reference  to  dipping.  The  hand  is  stained  or  colored, 
by  pressing  the  coloring  substance. 

Buttto  was  often  used  by  the  ancients  to  signify  a  col- 
oring of  the  hair  or  beard ;  in  none  of  which  instances 
can  it  denote  immersion. 

iElian,  speaking  of  an  old  coxcomb,  says,  "  He  en- 
deavored to  conceal  the  hoarincss  of  his  hair  by  (j^oHpj?) 
coloring  it.§ 

Appollonius,  disproving  the  claims  of  certain  false 
prophets,  and  ridiculing  their  attention  to  dress,  asks, 
"  Does  a  prophet  iftameiv}  color  his  hair  ?"ff 

Nicolas  of  Damascus,  contrasting  the  conduct  of  a  par- 
asite and  of  his  patron,  asks,  "  Does  a  patron  affect  to  be 

*  In  Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  pp.  26,  GO,  Gl.      \  Balrach.  v.  248. 
%  Aristoph.  Hipp.  v.  520.  ||  Aristot.  de  Hist.  Anim. 

\  Lib.  vii.  Cap.  20.        H  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  Lib.  v.  Cap.  18, 


22  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

younger  than  he  is?     Or  does  he  (Sameiou)   color  his 
hair  ?"* 

"  Some  say,  Nicylla,  that  you  (fiamsiv')  color  your 
hair."t 

"  You  (Supine)  color  your  head,  but  you  can  never 
(Baipeig)  color  old  age."f 

Lucian  speaks  of  those  (Baipovxeg)  dying  purple ;  and 
Aristophanes  of  (ogv:g  Bunrog)  a  colored  or  speckled  bird.J 

In  view  of  these  examples,  the  meaning  of  ^unrto  can- 
not be  mistaken.  That  it  is  often  used  to  signify  im- 
merse, I  have  no  doubt ;  but  that  this  is  not  its  uniform 
meaning  is  certain.  In  the  instances  above  cited,  we 
see  it  used  to  denote  fillin g ;  wetting  by  distillation ;  and 
coloring, — by  the  dropping,  the  sprinkling,  the  flowing, 
the  rubbing,  and  the  pressing,  of  the  coloring  substance. 

Such,  then,  is  the  primitive  word,  Burnt,).  And  what 
are  we  to  infer  from  it  respecting  the  sense  of  the  deriva- 
tive ^u-mttut,  -the  word  used  in  reference  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  ?  Pedobaptist  writers  have  generally  insisted 
that  fiamilb)  is  not  only  a  derivative,  but  a  diminutive,  of 
a  more  general  signification  than  Buttim,  and  importing 
less  strongly  the  idea  of  immersion.  Most  Baptist  writers, 
on  the  contrary,  allege,  that  the  two  words  are  essentially 
synonymous;  at  least,  that  the  latter  implies  immersion 
no  more  strongly  than  the  former. ||  It  is  not  important 
to  discuss  this  matter  here.     It  cannot  be  supposed  that 

*  Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  p.  61. 

t  Epigram.  Collect.  Bentlei,  p.  139.         \  Ewing's  Greek  Lexicon. 

||  Mr.  Judson  says  that  "  the  word  denoting  baptism  is  derived  from  the 
verbal  of  the  primitive  word  (Buttim)  by  a  change  in  the  termination 
which  never  affects  the  primary  idea."  Accordingly  he  renders  <<  Bumta 
to  immerse,  Bunjog  immersed,  and  BumiCw  to  make  immersed,  to  im- 
merse."   Sermon  on  Baptism,  pp.  3,  4. 

Dr.  Gale,  in  his  Reflections  on  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  decides 
that  Bamta  and  Bu7nit,w  "are  (Hjodvvu[icci)  exactly  the  same  as  to 
signification." 


MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  23 

the  derivative  should  be  stronger  than  its  primitive,  or  be 
more  particular  and  limited  in  its  signification  ;  and  we 
are  willing  to  assume  that,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  main 
question  at  issue,  both  are  of  the  same  import.  What, 
then,  is  the  conclusion  in  regard  to  QanxiCfa  ?  Clearly, 
that  it  does  not  always  denote  immersion.  It  may  be 
used,  like  (tamai,  to  signify  immerse ;  but  if  it  is  essen- 
tially synonymous  with  this  latter  word,  it  may  be  used 
in  other  senses,  aqd  must  be  capable  of  a  more  general 
signification.. 

(2.)  Let  us  next  have  recourse  to  authority  in  set- 
tling the  signification  of  QamiX/a,  and  of  the  substantives 
derived  from  it. 

Stephanus,  in  his  Thesaurus,  first  gives  to  ftumCtfa 
the  special  import  of  immersing,  and  then  the  more  gen- 
eral one  of  cleansing  or  washing.  Bunriaung  he  trans- 
lates immersion,  washing,  ablution. 

Scapula  renders  these  words  in  the  same  manner  as 
Stephanus.  BamiXja-%  to  immerse,  to  wash,  (abluo  lavo.) 
BanxiafJtoz,  immersion,  washing,  ablution,  (lotio,  ablutio.) 
Passor  gives  a  similar  rendering  to  both  these  words. 
BaTfxitfa,  to  immerse,  to  wash,  (abluo,  lavo.)  BamKrpog, 
immersion,  washing,  (lotio.) 

Suidas  gives  to  (Iuttti^o),  not  only  the  signification  of 
dipping  and  dying,  but  also  the  more  general  ones  of 
icetting,  washing,  purging,  cleansing,  (madefacio,  lavo, 
abluo,  purgo,  mundo.) 

Hedericus  follows  Stephanus  and  Scapula  in  rendering 
Partita)  to  immerse,  to  tcash,  (mergo,  immergo,  abluo, 
lavo.) 

Coulon  calls  baptism  "  a  sacred  mystery  of  the  en- 
trance into  Christianity,  administered  in  the  church 
(mersione,  ablutione,  et  aspersione)  by  immersion,  wash- 
ing, and  sprinkling," 


24  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Parkhurst  translates  (Jamity  to  immerse  in,  or  wash 
with  water,  in  token  of  purification  from  sin." 

Ainsworth  says,  "  to  baptize  is  to  wash  any  one  in 
the  sacred  baptismal  font,  or  to  sprinkle  on  him  the  con- 
secrated waters." 

Schleusner  renders  fianji^oj,  first,  to  immerse  in  wa- 
ter ;  and  secondly,  to  wash  or  cleanse  with  water,  (abluo, 
lavo,  aqua  purgo.) 

Wahl  (Robinson's  translation)  renders  the  same  word, 
first,  to  wash,  to  perform  ablution,  to  cleanse ;  secondly, 
to  immerse,  to  administer  the  rite  of  baptism. 

W.  Greenfield  translates  the  word,  as  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  to  wash,  to  ■perform  ablution,  to  cleanse, 
to  immerse,  to  overwhelm,  to  administer  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism. 

In  the  Lexicon  of  Ewing,  fyanxiCfa  is  said  to  be  used  in 
the  following  senses  : — "  I  couer  with  water,  or  some 
other  fluid,  in  whatever  manner  this  is  done,  whether  by 
immersion  or  affusion,  wholly  or  partially,  permanently  or 
for  a  moment.  Hence,  the  word  is  used  in  several  differ- 
ent senses,  referring  either  mediately  or  immediately  to 
the  primary  idea;  as  1.  I  plunge  or  sink  completely  un- 
der water.  2.  I  cover  partially  with  water.  3.  1  over- 
whelm or  cover  with  water,  by  rushing,  flowing,  or  pour- 
ing upon.  4.  I  drench  or  impregnate  with  liquor  by 
affusion.  5%  I  oppress  or  overwhelm,  in  a  metaphorical 
sense,  by  bringing  affliction  or  distress  upon.  C.  I  wash, 
in  general,  without  specifying  the  mode.  7.  I  wash  for 
the  special  purpose  of  symbolical,  ritual,  or  ceremonial 
purification.  8.  I  administer  the  ordinance  of  Christian 
baptism,  I  baptize." 

From  the  testimony  of  lexicographers,  we  may  proceed 
to  that  of  learned  critics  and  theologians. 

Piscator.     "  Bctmity)  signifies  not  only  to  be  dipped, 


MODE    OF     BAPTISM.       m  )i>  ■ 

but  also  in  any  other  way  to  be  tinged,  washed,  or  rinsed, 
(lavari  et  ablui.)* 

Bucaxus.  "  Buttti^C))  signifies  to  immerse,  to  tinge, 
to  toash  (abluere.")  "Baptism  is  taken  properly  in  Scrip- 
ture for  simple  washing  (pro  simplici  ablutionc)  whether 
Levitical  or  Pharisaical. "f 

Zanchius.  "  This  word  fiaiixiXfa.  dpth  as  well  signify 
to  dye,  and  simply  to  wash,  (lavare)  as  to  immerse."^ 

Maldonat.  "  With  the  Greeks,  ^anxi^etv  signifies  to 
dip,  to  wash,  to  wash  oft,  (lavare,  abluere)  and  as  Ter- 
tullian  uses  to  turn  it,  to  tinge  or  dye."|| 

Bonavexttjre.  "  Boanitfa  in  Greek  signifies  as  much 
as  lai'o  in  Latin,"  i.  e.  to  icash.§ 

Petf.r  Martyr.  "  B<(7in±i<>  signifies,  not  only  to  dip, 
but  in  any  way  to  tinge  or  wet."*i\ 

Wiiitaker.  "  The  word  ^anntfii  signifies,  not  only 
to  immerse,  but  also  to  tinge  or  icct."** 

Vorriloxg.  "  r'urni'^i  in  Greek  is  the  same  that  lavo 
is  in  Latin."  "Baptism,  properly  speaking,  signifies 
nothing  (nisi  lotionem)  except  washing.  vtt 

Alstedius.  '*The  term  baptism  signifies  both  immer- 
sion and  sprinkling,  (aspensionem)  and  of  consequence 
ablution. "t| 

Zelenus.     "  Baptism  signifies  dipping,  and  also  sprink- 

^•"iiii  .'-.■:"■ 

Mastricht.     "  Baptism   signifies  washing,   either    by 

sprinkling  or  dipping." j||f 

*  Com.  Loc.de  Baptismo,  pp.  157,  158.        t  Loc.  Com.  47.  p. 

%  De  Cultu  Dei,  Lib.  i.  Cap.  16. 

||  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Tertullian  observes  concerning' baptism,  (de  Ani- 
ma,  Cap.  10.)  that  it  means  (mergere  non  tantum,  sed  et  perfittidere)  not 
only  to  immerse,  but  also  to  pour. 

§  In  Walker's  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,  Chap.  3. 

IT  In  Rom.  Cap.  x. 

*»Phselect.  de  Sacram.  Baptismi,  p.  217.  tt  Works,  L:   .  iv.     . 

XX  Encyclop.  Lib.  xxv.  Sec.  iii.  Loc.  40. 

(Ill  In  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Part  ii.  Chap.  9. 

3 


.26  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

J.  Wickliffe.  "  It  matters  not  whether  persons  are 
dipped  once,  or  three  times,  or  whether  water  were  pour- 
ed upon  their  heads."* 

LvNDwoop.  "  Dipping  is  not  to  be  accounted  to  be  of 
the  essence  of  baptism,  but  it  may  be  given  also  by  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling."* 

Flacius  Illyricus.  "  Baptism  properly  signifies  in- 
tifiction,  a  word  used  by  Tertullian  ;  and,  per  Metalepsin, 
it  hath  the  signification  of  ablution  and  lotion."i 

*  Pareus.  "Baptism,  with  the  Greeks,  imports  any 
washing  or  cleansing,  whether  it  be  done  by  dipping  or 
sprinkling vVJ 

Ursinus  renders  ficinaijarfios  washing,  as-  well  as  dip- 
Ping-H  '  .      •   • 

Trelcatius  says."  baptism,  according  to  the  etymolo- 
gy of  it,  signifies  commonly  any  kind  of  ablution  or  clean- 
sing.'^ 

Woldebius.  "Baptism  signifies  dipping  and  sprink- 
ling, and  by-  consequence  ablution,  or  cleansing  by  wash- 
ing."^ 

Peter  Lombard.  "  Baptism  signifies  intinction,  i.  e. 
a  washing  of  the  body  (ablutip)  with  a  prescribed  form  of 
words."** 

•  NinoLAus  de  Orbellis.'    "Baptism  is  a  washing  or 
ablution  in  water-."ff 

Dan^us.  "  Baptism  signifies  not  Only  immersion,  but 
also  lotion  and  ablution  ;  and  net  only  are  they  baptized- 
who  are  wholly  dipped  in  Water,  but  they  that  are  tinged 
or  icettcd  with  water. "IJ 

*  In  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Part  fi.  Chap.  9.  +  Clavis  Soripturae. 
%  In  Heb.  ix.  10.                       ||  Explic.  Catech.  Ques.  69= 

§  Instit.  Lib.  ii.  Cap.  de  Baptisino.  fl  Chris.  Theol.  Lib.  i.  Cap.  23. 

**  In  Walker's  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,  Chap.  G. 
tt  Ques.  i.  deBaptismo. 

•  %X  Responsio  ad  Bellarm.  Tom.  de  Sacram.  Cap.  i. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  27 

Lightfoot.  "  The  application  of  water  is  of  the  es- 
sence of  baptism  ;  but  the  application  of  it  in  this  or  that 
manner,  speaks  but  a  circumstance."** 

Musculus.  "  As  for  dipping  the- infant,  we  judge  that 
not  so  necessary,  but  that  it.  is  free  for  the  church  to  bap- 
tize either  by  dippirfg  or  sprinkling  "t 

Thomas  Aquinas.  "Baptism  may  be  given,  not  only 
by  immet'sion,  but  also  by  affusion  of  water,  or  sprinkling 
with  it."| 

Featly.  "  Christ  no  where  requireth  dipping,  but  on- 
ly baptizing';  which  word  Hesychius,  Stephanus,  Scapula, 
and  Buddaeus,  those  great  masters  of  the  Greek  tongue, 
make  good  by  very  many  instances  out  of  the  classic  wri- 
ters, importeth  no  more  than  ablutionox  washing."\\ 

Leigh.  '[  Baptism  is  such  a  kind  of  washing  as  is  by 
plunging;  and  yet  it  is  taken  more  largely  for  any  kind 
of  washing,  where  there  is  no  dipping  at  all'."|| 

Dominicus  Sotus.  "  In  baptism,  there  is  something 
essential,  as  the  washing;  and  something  accidental, 
namely,  the  washing  in  this  or  the  other  manner. "§ 

Calvin.  "  Whether  the  person  baptized  be  wholly 
immersed^  and  whether  thrice  or  once,  or  whether  water 
be  only  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him,  is*  of  no  impor- 
tance."^] 

Beza.  "  They  are  rightly  baptized  who  are  baptized 
by  sprinkling?'**  ■ 

Hemingius.  "  As  often  as  we  see  infants  sprinkled 
with  the  water  of  baptism,  -we  are  reminded  of  their  secret 
regeneration. "ft 

*  Horae  Flebraicae  in  Matt.  iii.  6. 

t  Loci  Communes  de'Baptismo,  p.  431. 

\  In  Wall's  Hist   of  In.  Baptism,  Part  ii.  Chap.  9. 

||  In  Critica  Sacra.  §  Distiuc.  iii.  Quest,  i.  Art.  7. 

IT  Institutes  Vol.  iii.  p.  313.  **  Tract  Th'eol.  Vol.  iii.  p.  19£. 

ft  Com.  on  John  iii.  5. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Attersol.  "Dipping  into  water  is  not  necessary  to 
the  being  of  a  sacrament.  Sprinkling  of  water  is  not  ne- 
cessary to  the  being  of  a  sacrament.  But  wetting  and 
washing  with  water  are  necessary  to  the  being  of  a  sacra- 
mem."* 

Hammond.  -By  Christ's  appointment,  whosoever 
may  be  received  into  his  family  should  be  received 
with  this  ceremony  of  water;  therein  to  be  dipped  three 
times,  or  instead  of  that  to-be  sprinkled,  with  it."f 

Wall.  "The  word  (famgifl  in  Scripture  signifies  to 
toash  m  general,  without  determining  the  sense  to  this 
or  that  sort  of  washing."! 

Pool.  "  Why  does  Mark  use  ^mn^fc  or  vmrBadm  " 
in  Mark  vii.  4  ?  «  Answer.  It  was  lawful  to  wash  the 
hand  in  either  mode,  either  by  pouring  on  water,  or  by 

immersing  tfiem so  that  it  is  not  without  reason 

that  a  word  is  used  which  is  common  to  either  mode,"|| 

Witsids.  "  We  are  not  to  imagine  that  immersion  is 
so  necessary  to  baptism,  that  it  cannot  be  duly  performed 
by  pouring  water  all  over,  or  by  aspersion."^ 

Owen.  "  Baptism  is  any  kind  of  washing,  whether  by 
dipping  or  sprinkling. "|f 

Tilenus.  "'If  we  regard  the  etymology  of  the  word 
baptism,  it  signifies  dipping,  and  also  sprinkling."**   > 

Kechekman.  Baptism  signifies  either  immersion,  or 
washing  or  pouring  (perfusionem.")ff 

Flavel.  "The  word  baptize  signifying  as  well  to 
wash  as  to  plunge  ;  a  person  may  be  truly  baptized  that  is 
not  plunged-!! 

Glas.     ."  Immersion  cannot  be  called  baptism,   any 

*  Treatise  of  the  Sacraments  p.  108. 

tJVaet.  Catechism,  p.  154.  %  Hist/of  I„.  Pap.  Part.  S.  Ch       8. 

\\  Synops.s  on  Mark  vii.  4.  $  Econ.  of  Covenants,  Vol.iii.  p  392 

•  I  ft om  or ,  Heb  ix.  10.  ■  «  Disput.  de  BaptUmo>       883  P 

ft  Theol.  Syst.  Disp.  37.  {|  Works,  Vol.  ii.  p.  432. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  29 

otherwise   than    as    it    is    a    mode    of    washing    with 
water."* 

Doeuerlein.  "  The  power  of  the  word  fiunjity  is 
expressed  (in  iavando,  abluendo)  in  washing  or  perform- 
ing ablation  ;  on  which  account  we  read  of  the  baptism 
of  cups,  in  Mark  vii,  8,  and  the  rite  itself  is  called 
(xadaQtufipg)  a  purifying.,  in  John  iii.  2o."f 

Moris.  "To  baptize  is  in  a  solemn  manner  to  im- 
merse sf  man  in  water,  or  to  pour  water  upon  him. "J  • 

Adam  Clarke.  "To  say  that  sprinkling  is  no  gos- 
pel baptism  is  as  incorrect  as  to  say  that  immersion  is 
none.  Such  assertions  are  as  unchristian  as  they  are  un- 
charitable. Those  who  are  dipped  in  water  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity,  I  believe  to  be  baptized.  Those 
who  are  washed  or  sprinkled  with  water  in  the.name  of 
the  Trinty,  I  believe  to  be  equally  so  ;  and  the  repetition 
of  such  a  baptism  I  believe  to  be  profane.  Others  have 
a  right  to  believe  the  contrary,  if  they  see  good."|| 

This  list  of  quotations'  need  not  to  be  enlarged.  The 
reader  will  see  what  the  opinion  of  distinguished  men — 
lexicographers,,  critics,  and  theologians^ — has  been,  in 
regard  to  the  point  before  us ;  and  on  a  question  of  this 
nature",  the  judgment  of  the  learned  ought  to  have  weight; 
— I  know  it  will  be  said,  that  authority  is  pleaded  on  the 
other  side  ;  and  that  quotations  have  been  given  from 
Pedobaptiit  writers,  seeming  to  favor  the  idoa  of  exclu- 
sive immersion.  But  in  making  these  quotations,  our 
brethren  have  not  always  treated  either  their  authors  or 
the  public  fairly.  In  selecting  single  sentences,  or  parts 
of  sentences,  from  large  works,  where  saving  clauses  and 

*»  Diss,  on  In.  Bap.  p.  25.  t  Institut.  Theol.  Chris.  Vol.  ii.  p.  748. 

J  Commontarius  Ex.  His.  Vol   ii.  p.  491. 

j|  Comment,  on  Mat.  iii.  C.  and  Mark  xvi.  16. 

$  Mr  Carson,  while  endeavoring  to  show  that  p"rrT<£<W  "  always  signi- 
fies to  dip,"  concedes,  that  lie  has  "  all  the  lexicographers  and  comments^ 
tors  against  him,  in  that  opinion.''    p.  79. 

*3 


30  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

qualifying  words  and  phrases  are  omitted,  authors  may 
easily  be  made  to  speak  a  language  which  they  never  in- 
tended, and  wrong  impressions  may  be  left  upon  the  pub- 
lic mind.  It  is  true,  that  some  Pedobaptists  have  been 
partial  to  immersion,  and  have  wished  that  it  might  come 
into  more  general  use  ;  but  where  is  the  Pedobapiist  who, 
(judged  of,  not  by  insulated  passages,  but  by  the  iclwle  of 
his  works)  has  maintained  that  immersion  is  essential  to 
baptism  1  For  this,  it  will  be  recollected,  is  the  "point  at 
issue,  Is  immersion  essential  ?  Truly,  I  know  of  no  such 
Pedobaptist.  Whatever  the ' preferences  of  individuals 
may  have  been,  writers  of  this  class  would  say,  with  unit- 
ed voice,  that  immersion  is  not  essential  to  baptism  ;  that 
the  ordinance,  may  be  validly  administered  in  other 
modes. 

(3.)  We  come  now  to  consider  the  import  of  p'unr^'w, 
and  the  kindred  terms,  as  exhibited  in  their  general  use. 
My  object  will  be  to  show,  that  these  words  are  often  used 
by  writers,  sacred  and  profane,  to  signify  something  less 
than  a  total  immersion.  * 

The  Sibylline  verse  concerning  the  city  of  Athens,  as 
quoted  by  Plutarch  in  his  life  of  Theseus,  is  as  follows  : 
Aayoz  BastTity],  de  joi  Os/Jig  sari. 

"  Thou  mayest  be  baptized,  O  bladder,  but  it  is  not 
permitted  to  thee  to  go  under  the  water." — The  represen- 
tation is  that  of  a  leathern  bottle  or  bladder  cast  upon  the 
water,  but  which  can  hardly  be  pressed  under  it ; — import- 
ing that  though  the  Athenian  state  might  be  brought  into 
great  dangers,  it  could  not  be  destroyed.  The  idea  of 
immersion  is  of  course  precluded. 

Aristotle  says,  "The  Phenicians  who  inhabit  Cadiz  re- 
late, that,  sailing  beyond  Hercules'  pillars  with  the  wind  at 
East,  in  four  days  they  came  to  aland  uninhabited,  whose 
coast  was  full  of  sea  weeds,  and  is  not  ^ami^eodui)  cov- 
ered with  water  at  ebb  ;  but  when  the  tide  comes  in,  it  is 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  31 

entirely  overwhelmed."* — He»e  is  a  baptism,  but  no.  im- 
mersion. The  coast  was  not  pigged  into  the  tide,  but 
the  tide  flowed  over  Ihe  coast. 

Homer,  representing  the  death  of  one  of  his  heroes, 
says,  "  He  struck  him  across  the  neck  with  his  heavy 
sword,  and  the  sword  became  warm  with  blood."  One 
ancient  Greek  critic  remarks  on  this  passage  thus;  "  The 
sword  is  represented  as  (tflitnTiodi,)  baptized  with  blood." 
Another  says,  "  In  this  phrase  Homer  expresses  himself 
with  the  greatest  energy,  signifying  that  the  sword  was  so 
(JtanTiodevtog)  baptized  in  blood,  that  it  was  even  heated 
by  it."*  But  how  could  a  sword  be  plunged  into  the  blood 
of  a  man,  in  cutting  off  his  head?  Doubtless  it  was  more 
or  less  stained  with  blood.  By  a  strong  figure,  it  might 
be  said  to  be  bathed  in  blood.  But  in  this  case,  the  bath- 
ing must  have  been  effected  by  the  blood  flowing  over  the 
sword,  and  not  by  the  sword  being  plunged  into  the 
blood . 

In  his  account  of  the  Platonic  Banquet,  Aristophanes 
acknowledges  that  he  had  been  ((teSqimaftevaip)  baptized 
with  wine  on  the  preceding  day.t  Surely  he  had  rrot 
been,  either  literally  or  figuratively,  plunged  into  wine ; 
but  the  wine  had  been  poured  into  him.  Figuratively,  he 
had  been  overcome  by  it. 

Mr.  Ewing,  in  his  greek  Lexicon  (Art.  ;i'«.7n>)  has 
several  examples  of  the  same  kind."  BeSamiadm  toj 
u/quto),  to  be  baptized  with  wine."  Otva  3s  nollo)  Ake%- 
uvSqov  SuTinauoa.  Having  baptized  Alexander  with 
much  wine." 

A  few  examples  of  the  figurative  use  of  Sann^oi  by  pro- 
fane authors  will  show,  that  this  word  is  not  altogether  so 
determinate  in  its  signification,  as  some  men  seem  to  im- 
agine. 

*  In  Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  pp.  17,  86. 
^  In  Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  xxiv^p.  431. 


32  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Djodorus  Siculus  says,  i'  On  account  of  the  abundant 
supply  from  these  sources,  they  do  not  (^unii^ovoi)  op- 
press the  common  people  with  taxes."* 

JosepTius  speaks  of  some  who,  without  engaging  in 
faction,  afterwards  (sfiamiouv)  oppressed  the  city."t 

Plutarch  says  "  (^eSaniiofiEvoi)  oppressed  with  a  debt 
of  five  thousand  myriads."! 

Joseplius,  speaking  of  the' purification  from  defilement 
by  a  dead  body,  says,  "  and  (fictTtnoavTe g)  having  baptized 
some  of  the  ashes  with  spring  water,  they  sprinkled,"  &c.|| 
From  the  direction  in  the  ceremonial  law,  we  know  how 
this  baptism  was  performed.  "  They  shall  take  of  the 
ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer,  and  running  water  shall  be  put 
thereto  in  a  vessel,  and  a  clean  person  shall  sprinkle  it." 
Numb.  xix.  17.  This  putting  of  running  water  to  the 
ashes  is  called  by  Josephus  a  baptizing  of  the  ashes. 

In  Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv.  30,  we  have  a  similar  use  of 
the  word  @ami,tf>).  "  He  (@anTit,o[ievog)  that  is  baptized 
or  purified  from  the  touch  of  a  dead  body,  and  again 
tou'eheth  it,  what  is -he  profited  (zw  Xovigw)  by  his  wash- 
ing?" Here,  the  purification  from  the  touch  of  a  dead 
body,  which  consisted  (in  part  at  least)  in  being  sprinkled 
and  washing  the  clothes,^  is  called  a  baptism.  It  is  also 
called  {Iovtqov}  a  washing,  making  baptizing  and  wash- 
ing to  be  of  the  same  import. 

In  Judith  xii.  7,  Judith  is  said  to  have  gone  out  "  in 
the  night,  and  (e6unnc,szo)  baptized  herself  in  the  camp 
(em  T-ng  irrjyrjg}  at  the  fountain  of  water."  The  preposi- 
tion here  used,  (em,)  as  well  as  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  forbid  the  supposition  that  Judith  plunged  herself 
into  the  fountain.  She  went  and  washed  herself  at  it ; 
and  this  washing  is  called  a  baptism. 

*  Lib.  50.  Cap.  73.  t  Joseph,  de  Bellp,  iv.3. 

%  In  Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  p.  131.  ||  Antiq.  Lib.  iv.  Cap.  4. 

§  See  Numbers  xix.  19. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  33 

The  use  of  the  words  denoting  baptism  by  the  Christ- 
ian Fathers  is  decisive  against  the  idea  of  exclusive  im- 
mersion. 

Justyn  Martyr,  in  his  Apology  to  Antonius,  whan 
describing  the  baptism  of  the  early  Christians,  repeatedly 
calls  it  (lovigov)  a  washing;  ami  he  quotes  Isaiah  as 
predicting  this  rite  in  the  following  words  ;  "  Wash  you, 
make  you  clean,"  &c.  Chap:  i.  1(>.  Indeed,  this  mode 
of  representing  the  subject  is  very  common  in  the  wri- 
tings of  the  Fathers.  The  words  Iovtqov,  Iavandi,  ablu- 
endi,  diluendi,  la'vationis,  laeacri,  &c.  importing- no  more 
than  in   the   general,  were    in    perpetual    use 

among  them,  in  connexion  with  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism. 

Tertullian  speaks  of  baptism  being  administered  by 
sprinkling.  Who  will  accommodate  you,  a  man  whose 
penitence  is  so  little  to  be  trusted  (asperginem  unara 
aquae)  with  one  sprinkling  of  water  V* 

Origen  represents  the  wood  on  the  altar,  over  which 
water  was  poured  at  t ho  command  of  Elijah  (1  Kings  xviii. 
33)  as  hating  been  baptized.t  This  baptism,  we  k*how 
was  effected  by  pouring. 

Lactantius  says  that  Christ  received  baptism,  "  that 
he  might  save  the  Gentiles  by  baptism,  that  is  (purifici 
roris  perfusione)  by  the  distilling  of  the  purifying  dew."| 
In  this  instance,  the  water  of  baptism  is  represented  as 
falling  like  the  dew. 

Cypria  ,  Jerome,  and  some  other  ofthe  fathers,  under- 
stood the  prediction,  "  1  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean,"  (Ezek.  xxxvi.  25  )  as  having 
reference  to  water  baptism. § 

Clemens    Alexandrinus,   speaking  of  a   backslider 

*  De  Poenit.  Cap.  6.  t  In  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Part  ii.  p.  302. 

$  Opera.  Lib.  iv.  Cap.  15. 
$  C\  era.  Cyp.  Lib.  ii.  Fpis.  7.  Ep's,  83  Hit  ron  • 


34  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

whom  John  was  the  means  of  reclaiming,  says,  "  he  was 
baptized  a  second  time  toith  tears."* 

Athanasius  reckons  up  eight  several  baptisms  ;  1.  that 
o/  the  flood  ;  2.  that  of  Moses  in  the  sea  ;  3.  the  legal 
baptism  of  the  Jews  after  uncleanness;  4.  that  of  John 
Baptist ;  5.  that  of  Jesus.;  6.  of  tears  ;  7.  of  martyrdom  ; 
and  8.  of  eternal' fire. "t 

Gregory  Nazianzen  says,  "  I  know  of  a.  fourth  bap- 
tism, that  by  martyrdom  and  blood;'  and  I.  know  of  a 
fifth,  that  of  tears."i 

Basil-  tell  us  of  a  martyr  that  "  was  baptized  into 
Christ  with  his  own  blood."i 

The  author  of  the  Responses  to  Antiochus  (attributed 
to  Athanasius)  says;  "  God  hath  granted  unto  man  three 
purging  baptisms  ;  that  of  water,  that  of  the  testimony  of 
one's  own  blood,  and  that  of  terns  "t 

The  baptism  of  tears  and  blood  was  a  favorite  phrase- 
ology with  the  early  Christians.  It  is  needless  to  remark, 
that  these  baptisms,  whether  understood  literally  or  figu- 
ratively, are  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  im- 
mersion. 

The  word  (2a?rr*£<»  occurs  in  the  Septuagint  in  the  fol- 
lowing connexion  :  Naaman  came*to  the  prophet  Elisha 
to  .be  cleansed  of  his  leprosy  ;  "  and  Elisha  sent  a  mes- 
senger unto  him,  saying,  Go  and  (lovaai)  toash  in  Jordan 
seven  times,  and  thy  flesh  shall  come  again  unto  thee,  and 
thou  shalt  be  clean."  "  Then  he  went  and  (zGutttio-ccto)' 
baptized  himself  seven  times  in  Jordan,  according  to  the 
saying  of  the  man  of  God,  and  his  flesh  came  again  as 
the  flesh  of  a  little  child,  and  he  was  clean."  2  Kings  v. 
10,  14.  It  is  obvious  that  (3umi'Cw  is  here  used  as  synon- 
ymous with  Iovm,  a  word  which  signifies,  in  the  general, 
to  wash.     Naaman  was  directed  by  the  prophet  to  wash 

*  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  Lib.  iii.  Cap.  20. 

t  In  Walker's  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,  Chap.  6, 


•     MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  35 

himself  in  Jordan  ;  and  he  went  and  washed  according 
to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God.  Yet  this  last  washing 
is  expressly  called  a  baptism. 

The  apostle  Paul  informs  us  that  the  congregation  of 
Israel  "  were  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud,  and  in 
the  sea.-'  1  Cor.  x.  2.  But  how  were  this  great  congre- 
gation haptized  ?  Certainly  not  by  an  immersion  in  the 
waters  ;  for  we  read  expressly  that  "  they  went  into  the 
midst  of  the  sea  upon  dry  ground."  Ex.  xiv.  22.  We 
may  be  told  of  the  -propriety  of  representing  their  situa- 
tion, with  the  sea  on  each  side,  and  the  cloud  covering 
them,  as  an  immersion  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea  ;  but 
until  it  can  be  explained  how  they  could  be  plunged  into 
the  water,  while  they  were  walking  on  dry  ground,  it  will 
remain  certain' that  their  baptism  was  not  by  immersion.*. 

The  .same  Apostle  also  informs  us,  that  the  service  of 
the  sanctuary  under  the  former  dispensation  consisted, 
among  other  things,  in  {Siatpoqoig  ^anrta/wie)  "  divers 
washings"  or  baptisms.  Heb.  ix.  10.  In  the  verses  fol- 
lowing, he  relates  how  the  unclean  were  at  that  time 
sprinkled  with  water  and  with  blood  ;  and  that  "  Moses 
took  the  blood  of  calves,  and  of  goats,  with  water,  and 
scarlet  wool,  and  hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book  and 
all  the  people."  Is  it  not  evident,  then,  that  among  the 
"  divers  baptisms"  practised  by  the  Jews,  the  Apostle  in- 
cluded these  divers  sprinklings?  If  Ave  suppose  him  to 
refer  to  their  purifications  generally,  some  of.  which  con- 
sisted in  bathing,  he  must  have  referred  to  their  sprink- 
lings as  well  as  their  bathings  ;  and,  consequently,  must 

•  Professor  Robinson  thinks  that,  by  the  viatt  of  waters  on  each  side  of 
the  Israelites,  during'  their  passage  through  the  sea,  we  are  to  understand, 
that  there  wJs  a  body  oftcater  above  them,  and  below  them.;  while  by  the 
ebbing  of  the  tide,  and  the  miraculous  driving  back  of  the  sea  by  a  strong 
east  wind,  the  fording  place  over  which  they  passed  was  dry  ground.  See 
Biblical  Repository  for  Oct.  1832,  p.  755. 


36  MODE    OF    BAPTISM.       . 

have  used  the  word  baptisms  to   denote  other  modes  of 
applying  water  besides  a  total  immersion. 

It  is  said  "  of  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,"  that 
"  when  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  {Jtanxi- 
t,MVTtti)  be  baptized,  they  eat  not."  Mark  vii.  4.  And 
when  a  certain  Pharisee  invited  our  Lord  '*'  to  dine  with 
him,  he  marvelled  that  he  .had  not  first  (tGumtrrfti])  been 
baptized  before  dinner."  Luke  xi.  38.  But  was  it  a 
custom  with  all  the  Jews  to  be  immersed  before  eating  ? 
Or  did  the  Pharisee  marvel,  that  our -Lord,  before  he  sat 
down  to  meat,  was  not  immersed?  If  the  case  is  not  suf- 
ficiently clear  of  itself,  it  is  easy  to  prove,  and  from  the 
highest  authority,  that  the  Jews  did  not'  practise  immer- 
sion previous  to  their  meals,  but  merely  a  washing-  of  the 
#hands.  "  Why  do  thy  disciples  transgress  the  tradition 
of  the  elders,  for  they' wash  not  their  hands  when  they  eat 
bread  ?"  Matt.  xv.  2.  "  The  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews, 
except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the 
tradition  of  the  elders."  Mark;  vii.  3.  Maimonides  says, 
"  A  man  shall  not  need  to  wash  his  hands  as  oft  a-s  he 
eats,,  if  he  do  not  go  abroad,  or  meddle  with  business,  or 
gfo  to  the  market,  or  avert  his  mind  another  way  ;  but  if 
he  do,  he  is  bound  to  wash  his  hands  as  oft  as  there  is 
need  of  washing."*  In  view  of  these  representations,  is 
it  not  certain,  that  the  baptisms  which  the  Jews  practis- 
ed previous  to  their  meals,  and  which  the  Pharisee  mar- 
velled that  our  Saviour  should  neglect,  were  merely  «., 
washing  of  the  hands  ? 

It  is  also  said  that  "  there  be  many  other  things  which 
the  Jews  havej-eceived  to  hold,  as  the  (fiamiafiovg)  bap- 

•  In  Scott  on  Mark  vii.  3.  Kuinoel  says,  "  It  is  not  probable  that  the 
Pharisees  imposed  this  burthen  upon  themselves,  that  whenever  they  came 
m  from  abroad,  they  laid  aside  their  garments,  and  immersed  their  bodies 
in  water  5  neither  can  it  be  proved,  by  sufficient  arguments,  that  they  had 
such  a  custom."    Com.  on  Mark  vii.  4. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  37 

iisms  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables." 
Mark  vii.  4.  If  it  is  likely  that,  in  washing,  the  Jews 
immersed  their  small  cups.,  is  it  at  all  likely  that  they  im- 
mersed their  pots  and  kettles,  their  brazen  vessels  and 
their  tables  ?  Do  we  find  this  the  most  convenient  meth- 
od of  washing  such  articles  ?  And  especially  should  we, 
if,  after  the  Jewish  custom,  we  reclined  at  our  meals,  and 
of  consequence  were  obliged  to  construct  our  tables  much 
larger  than  they  are  at  present  ?  .Accordingly,  Pool  de- 
termines, in  view  of  the  word  baptism  in  this  place,  that 
"it  does  not  always  denote  immersion,  but  sometimes 
washing  only,  or  even  sprinkling.1 

I  have  noticed,  in  another  connexion,  those  passages 
which  speak  of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  .  It  is  impor- 
tant that  they  be  adverted  to  again,  as  exhibiting  the 
manner  in  which  the  sacred  writers  use  the  words  bap- 
tize and  baptism.  These  writers  evidently  speak  of  the 
pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  as  synonymous  with  the  bap-- 
tism  of  the  Spirit;  and,  consequently,  it  would  seem  that 
pouring  mast  be  a  significant  and  proper  mode  of  bap- 
tizing. 

We  have  now  fully  examined  the  words  denoting  bap- 
tism. We  have  considered  their  etymology,  adduced 
numerous  and  respectable  authorities*,  and  traced  them 
in  their  general  use.  And  we  are  brought  irresistibly  to 
the  conclusion,  that  they  do  not  uniformly  signify  or  im- 
ply immersion.  This  conclusion  places  another  on  an. 
immoveable"  basis — immersion  is  no/  essential  to  Christian 
baptisin. 

4.  The  circumstances  attending  most  of  the  baptisms 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament  indicate  some  other 
mode  besides  immersion. 

The  first  in  order  are  the  baptisms  by  John.     That 
• 

*  Synopsis  in  loc. 
4 


38  MODE  OF  baptism! 

this  great  reformer  and  prophet  baptized  at  Jordon  and 
Enon  is  no  certain  evidence  that  he  baptized  by  immer- 
sion. The  convenience  of  the  multitudes  by  which  he 
was  thronged  made  it  necessary  that  he  should  reside, 
for  the  most  part,  in  the*«vicinity  of  "  much  water." 
Many  circumstances  of  his  baptism  seem  inconsistent 
with  immersion,  and  render  it  probable  that  he  practised' 
oidinarily  some  other  mode.  He  baptized  "  in  the  des- 
ert," as  well  as  at  Jordon.  He  baptized  with  water,  as 
well,  as  in  it.*  He  baptized  in  the  open  fields,  where 
there  were  no  accommodations  for  a  change  of  apparel. 
And  more  than  all,  he  baptized  vast  multitudes  in  a  lit- 
tle time.  His  ministry  could  not  have  continued  more 
than  a  year  and  a  half;  in  which  time  he  baptized  "  Je- 
rusalem, and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about 
Jordan."  Matt.  iii.  5.  Some  Baptists  have  thought  it 
"probable  that  he  baptized,  at  least,  500,000  persons.  But 
•  to  immerse  these  in  a  year  and  a  half,  allowing  only  a 
minute  for  the  immersion  of  each,  he  must  have  been 
constantly  in  the  water,  every  day,  for  more  than  fifteen 
hours.  Is  it  credible  that  h§  should  do  this  ;•  especially 
since  we  are  assured  that  he  "  did  no  miracle  ?"  John 
x.  41.  Is  it  credible,  then,  that,  in  ordinary  cases,  John 
baptized  by  immersion  ?f 

*  ' EOuTTTiaet'  ev  vdaji,.  Acts  i.  5.  John  traces  an  analogy  between 
his  baptism,  and  that  of  the  Spirit.  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water,  but 
he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.''  Matt.  iii.  11.  If 
the  word  baptize  may  be  translated  immerse  in  the  former  part  of  this  sen- 
tence, doubtless  it  may  in  the  latter  part.  But  what  translator  would  be 
satisfied  to  say..  "  He  shall  immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  in'  fire  ?" 

+  Not  a  few  of  the  ancients  entertained  the  opinion  that  John  baptized  by 
pouring'.  After  this  manner,  Aurelius  Prudentius,  who  wrote  A.  D.  390, 
represents  him  as  baptizing  "  Perfundit  fluvio,"  &.c— A  few  y-ears  later, 
Paulinus,  bishop  of  Nola,  says,  "  He  (John  Baptist)  washes  away  the  sins 
of  believers  (infusis  lymphis)  by  the  pouring  of  water. — Numerous  ancient 
pictures  represent  Christ  as  having  been  baptized  by  pouring. — Bernard 
speaks  of  John  as  having  baptized  his  Lord  after  this  manner.     "  Infundit 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  39 

The  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  next  claims  atten- 
tion. The  Scriptures  furnish  not  an  incident  that  would 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  this  multitude  were  immersed. 
Many  circumstances,  on  the  contrary,  seem  to  indicate 
that  some  other  mode  must  have  been  adopted.  The  oc- 
casion was  sudden  ;  the  multitude  were  principally  stran- 
gers, who  had  made  no  previous  preparation  for  a  change 
of  garments;  they  were  in  Jerusalem,  several  miles  from 
Jordon  and  Enon  ;  no  public  baths  had  been  engaged, 
or  could  be,  as  the  rulers  were  violently  opposed  to  the 
Christians  ;  no  mention  is  made  of  their  leaving  the  place, 
not  even  the  house,  wheid  they  were  assembled  ;  and 
above  all,  the  time  was  short.  The  Apostles  came  togeth- 
er at  the  third  hour,  or  nine  o'clock.  Besides  the  dis- 
course, of  which  we  have  an  epitome  in  the  acts,  it  is  said 
they  "  testified  and  exhorted  with  many  other  ivorels." 
Three  thousand  were  awakened,  convinced,  converted, 
professed  their' faith  in  Christ,  and  concluded  to  be  bap- 
tized. These  various  important  transactions  must  have 
occupied  at  least  four  hours.  Five  hours  of  the  day  now 
remained,  and  three  thousand  were  to  be  baptized  by 
twelve  men.  Could  they  be  immersed?  The  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  as  it  seems  to  me,  plainly  forbid  the 
supposition.  Besides,  they  had  all  just  been  baptized  by 
the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  had  received 
spiritual  baptism,  the  thing  signifitd,  under  the  similitude 
of  pouring.  How  natural  to  suppose  that  they  received 
water  baptism,  the  signf  in  the  same  way  ? 

I  know  it  is  said,  that  it  is  not  recorded  that  the  three 
thousand  were  baptized  the  same  day,  but  only  that  they 
were  added  to  the  number  of  the  disciples.     But  it  is  re- 

aquam  capiti  Creatoris  creatura.  See  Walker's  Doctrine  of  Baptisms, 
Chap.  10.  Lightfoot  says,  "  As  it  is  beyond  a  doubt  that  John  took  those 
whom  he  baptized  into  the  riser,  so  it  is  scarcely  less  certain  that  he  there 
sprinkled  them  with  water."-    Com.  on  Luke  iii.  16. 


40  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

corded  that  "  they  who  gladly  received  the  word  were 
baptized ;"  and  I  would  inquire  whether  any  were  added 
to  the  number  of  the  disciples  who  did  not  gladjy  receive 
the  word  V 

It  is  also  said,  that  the  whole  hundred  and  twenty  dis- 
ciples might  have  been  employed  in  baptizing  on  this 
^reat  occasion.  But  it  remains  to  be  proved,  that  the 
whole  of  this  number,  females  as  well  as  males,  were  offi- 
cially qualified  to  administer  baptism. 

On  the  whole,  I  cannot  entertain  a  doubt  that  the  three 
thousand  were  baptized  by  the  Apostles  the  same  day 
they  believed,  and  that' the  <ndinance  was  administered 
by  pouring  or  sprinkling .* 

The  baptism  of  the  eunuch  is  usually  cited  in  proof  of 
immersion.  And  suppose  it  be  admitted  that  the  eunuch 
was  immersed.  This  would  be  only  admitting  that  im- 
mersion is  baptism,  a  point  which  we  have  never  called 
in  question.  I  see  no  great  reason,  however,  to  suppose 
that  the  eunuch  was  immersed.  No  circumstance  indi- 
cates it,  except  its  being  said  that,  both  he  tfnd  Philip 
went  down  into,  or  (etg)  to  the  water,  and  afterwards 
came  up  out  of,  or  (?*)  from  it ;  and  this  they  might  and 
probably  would  have  done,  had  the  eunuch  been  sprink- 
led. 

In  the  baptism  of  Paul,  nothing  looks  like  immersion, 
but  every  circumstance  appears  against  it.  He  had  been 
three  days  in  Damascus  "  without  sight,  and  neither" ate 
nor  drank."  Acts  ix.  10.  .  Ananias  comes  in  and  salutes 
him  as  a  Christian  brother.  Immediately  he  rises  up, 
'and  is  baptized.     And  after  baptism,  "  when  he  had  re- 

*  In  this  opinion  I  am  happy  to  concur  with  many  ancient  and  learned 
writers.  Zanchy,  in  his  "  Cultu  Dei  Externo,"  Lib.  i.  says,  "  The  three 
thousand  were  baptized,  non  alia  ratione  quam  aspersione  aquce."  Lyn- 
wood,  and  Bonaventure,  and  Nicolaus  de  Orbellis,  and  Chamier,  and  many 
others,  say  the  same. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  41 

ceived  meat,  he  was  strengthened."  He  does  not  repair 
to  a  river,  or  bath,  or  so  much  as  leave  the  house.  In-. 
deed,  m  his  weak  state,  it  is  hardly  probable  that  he  was 
able  to  leave  it.  With  the  precise  mode  of  Paul's  bap- 
tism I  pretend  not  to  be  acquainted  ;  but  I  do  think  it  in 
the  highest  degree  improbable  that  he  was  immersed. 

The  instance  of  Cornelius  and  his  family  is  equally 
convincing.  They  believed  on  the  preaching  of  Peter  ; 
the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them  ;  and  the  astonished  Apostle, 
perceiving  the  event,  exclaimed,  "Can  any  man  forbid 
water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  who  have  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost  as  weir  as  we?"  Acts  x.  47. 
"  Can  any  man  forbid  water — that  is,  that  it  should  be 
brought  I  "Is  not  this  the  most  natural  and  obvious 
meaning — an  idea  which  the  form  of  words  and  mode  of 
expression  instantly  and.  fully  excite  in  the  mind  ?  Ac- 
cordingly, there *is  no  hint  of  their  going  abroad,  or  of 
any  other  preparation  being  made  in  order  to  baptism,  than 
that  of  bringing  water  into  the  room.  The  history  leads 
us  to  believe,  that  they  were"  baptized  at  the  very  junc- 
ture when  Peter  commanded  it,  and  in  the  very  apart- 
ment where  they  were  at  the  time  assembled."  They 
had  just  received  the  thing  signified  in  baptism,  by  the  de- 
scent of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  them  ;  and  in  all  probability 
they  received  the  external  sign  by  the  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling of  water. 

The  circumstances  of  .the  jailer's  baptism  prove  as  con- 
clusively as  evidence  of  this  nature  will  admit,  that  he 
and  his  family  were  not  immersed.  They  were  baptized 
at  home,  at  midnight,  at  the  same  hour  in  which  they^e- 
lieved.  Acts  xvi.  33.  We  have  much  reason  to  suppose 
that,  during  the  whole  transaction,  Paul  and  Silas  never 
left  the  prison.  They  would  not  leave  it  the  following 
day,  till  those  who  had  unjustly  apprehended  and  beaten 
them  came  and  honorably  brought  them  out.  Is  it  like- 
*4 


42      .-  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

ly,  then,  that  they  left  it  in  a  clandestine  manner  the 
night  before,  regardless  of  the  strict  charge  which  the 
jailer  had  received  to  keep  them  safely,  and  this,  .too,  at 
a  moment  wlren  every  one  was  awake,  and  the  whole  city 
had  just  been  roused  and  terrified  with  an  earthquake? 
Is  it  likely  that,  under  these  circumstances,  and  in  their 
bruised  and  distressed  condition,  they  went  abroad,  and 
into  the  water,  for  the  purpose  of  immersion  1  To  me,  I 
must  acknowledge,  the  thing  appears  altogether  incredi- 
ble. 

The  circumstances  of  some  of  the  principal  instances 
of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament — those  cal- 
culated to  afford  light  in  regard  to. the  mode  of  adminis- 
tration, have  now  been  examined  ;  and  the  reader  must 
judge  whether  they  do  not  satisfactorily  indicate  some 
other  mode  besides  immersion. 

5.  Immersion  was  never  considered  as  essential  to 
baptism,  till  subsequent  to  the  reformation  in  the  sixteenth 
century. — That  immersions  have  been  frequent  in  the 
Christian  church,  and  that  they  have  been  more  general- 
ly practised  at  some  periods,  than*  they  now  are  among 
the  Pedobaptists  of  this  country,  or  than  they  were  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  I  see  no  reason  to  doubt.  There  is 
a  disposition  in  men  to  overdo  in  the  externals  of  religion, 
while  they  underdo,  and  perhaps  do  little  or  nothing,  in 
things  more  essential.  The  Pharisees,  not  satisfied  with 
the.  yoke' of  the  ceremonial  law,  must  add  to  it  "  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  elders."  Peter,  not  satisfied  with  that  degree 
of  washing  which  his  Master  judged  to  be  sufficient,  said, 
"  Slot  my  feet  only,  but  also  my  hands  and  my  head." 
And  Christians,  in  some  past  ages,  not  satisfied  to  be 
baptized  by  pouring,  washing,  or  sprinkling,  which  is  as 
much,  I  think,  as  the  Saviour  requires,  must  be  plunged 
completely  under  water.  Indeed,  at  some  periods  they 
have  not  been  satisfied  even  with  this.     They  must  be 


MODE    OF     BAPTISM.  43 

immersed  three  times.  They  must  be  immersed  naked. 
They  must  have  water  applied  to  the  face,  and  be  mark- 
ed with  a  cross,  and  anointed  with  oil,  subsequent  to  im- 
mersion. They  must  be  robed  in  white,  a  certain  num- 
ber of  days  after  baptism,  in'  token  of  their  purity.*  I 
mention  these  facts  to  show  the  propensity  there  is  in 
man  to  be  superstitious,  and  to  attempt  more  than  is  need- 
ful in  the  externals  of  religion.  It  is  oVving  to  this  pro- 
pensity, that  immersions  have  at  some  periods  more  gen- 
erally prevailed,  than  it  can  be  made  to  appear  they  did 
under  the  ministry. of  the  -Apostles. 

I  propose  it,  however,  as  an  indubitable  fact,  that  im- 
mersion never  was  considered  as  essential  to  baptism,  till 
the  rise  of  the  Anabaptists  (as  they  were  then  called)  in 
the  sixteenth  century.  I  say  essential;  for  this,  it  will 
be  recollected,  is  the  point  at  issue. 

The  case  of  the  clinics,  so  often  referred  to,  is  proof 
conclusive  th,at  immersion  was  not  deemed  essential  in 
the  primitive  church.  The  clinics  (so  called  from  the 
Greek  xAtvi?)  were  those  who  were  baptized  in  sickness.; 
and  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  they  were  baptized 
by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  It  is  admitted,  too,  that,  in 
case  of  recovery,  they  were  not  re-baptized.  The  con- 
clusion is  inevitable,  that  ppuring  or  sprinkling  was  re- 
garded, in  the  primitive  church,  as  valid  baptism  ;  and  of 
course  that  immersion  was  not  considered  essential. 

It  has  been  objected,  indeed,  that  the  clinics  were  ca- 
nonically  prohibited  the  priesthood.  But  why  were  they 
prohibited  ?  Not  because  of  the  informality  of  their  bap- 
tism ;  but  because  their  sincerity  had  not  been  sufficient- 
ly tested.  Baptism,  at  that  "period,  exposed  persons  to 
the  most  dreadful  persecutions,  especially  if  they  under- 
took the  work  of  the  ministry.     If,  therefore,  any  person 

*  See  Witsius'  Econ.  of  Cov.  Vol.  iii.  p.  394,  and  Vossii  Disput.  i.  de 
Bap.  th.  9. 


44  MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

neglected  baptism  until  visited  with  sickness,  this  neglect 
rendered  his  character  liable  to  suspicion.  Accordingly, 
the  council  of  Neocesarea  decreed,  A.  D.  313,  as  fol- 
lows : — "  He  who  is  baptized  when  sick  ought  not  to  be 
made  a  priest,  unless  his  diligence  and  fidelity  do  after- 
wards prove  commendablej  or  the  scarcity  of  men  fit  for 
the  office  require  it ;  for  his  coming  to  the  faith  is  not 
voluntary,  but  from  necessity." 

It  was  made  a  question  by  Magnus  to  Cyprian,  about 
the  middle  of  the  third  century,  "  whether  they  are  to  be 
esteemed  right  Christians  who  "have  been  only  sprinkled 
with  water,  and  not  washed  or  dipped."*  In  reply,  Cyp- 
rian thus  writes  : — "  I  would  use  so  much  modesty  and 
humility,  as  not  to  prescribe  so  positively,  but  that  every 
one  should  have  the  freedom  of  his  own  thoughts,  and  do 
as  he  thinks  best.  For  the  contagion  of  sin  is  not,  in  the 
sacrament  of  salvation,  washed  off  by  the  same  means  as 
the  dirt  of  the  skin  and  of  the  body  is  washed  away. 
There  is  no  necessity  of  soap,  or  of  a  large  pool,  or  fish 
pond.  It  is  in  another  way  that  the  breast  of  the  believ-  . 
er  is  washed  ;  after  another  manner,  that  the  mind  of  man 
is  by  faith  cleansed.  In  the  saving  sacraments,  when 
necessity  obliges,  and  God  grants  his  indulgence,  the 
shortest  ways  of  transacting -divine  matters  confers  the 
whole  on  believers.  Neither  ought  any  one  to  be  dis- 
turbed because  the  sick  are  baptized  by  sprinkling  or 
washing;  since  they  obtain  the  favor  of  the  Lord."  Cyp- 
rian here  quotes  the-  language  of  the  prophet,  "  I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean," 
and  adds,  "  From  hence  it  appears  that  the  sprinkling  of 
water  is  of  equal  validity  with  the  laver  of  salvation  A 

*  There  was  no  question,  it  seems,  at  this  time,  as  to  the  validity  odcash- 
ing ;  and  why  should  sprinkling  have  "come  in  question,  if  this  mode  of  bap- 
tism were  not  in  use  ? 

t  Opera  Cyp.  Lib.  ii.  Epis.  7. 


MODE  ^)F    BAPTISM.  45 

Dr.  Cave  says,  the  primitive  Christians  "  did  not  hold 
sprinkling  to  be  unlawful,  especially  in  cases  of  necessi- 
ty, of  weakness,  danger  of  death,  or  where  conveniency 
of  imrrterging  could  not  be  had."  He  further  says,  that 
they  thought  the  martyrs  "  sufficiently  qualified  for  heav- 
en, by  being  baptized  in  their  own  blood."*       ^ 

Mr.  Walker  tells  us  of  a  Jew  who,  while  travelling 
with  Christians  in  the  time  of  .Marcus  Aurelius  Antoni- 
nus, about  sixty  or  seventy  years  after  the  Apostles,  was 
converted,  fell  sick,  and  desired  baptism.  Not-  having 
water, ."  they  sprinkled  hrm  thrice  with  sand,  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  lie  recov- 
ered, and  his  case  was  reported  to  the  Bishop,  who  de- 
cided that  the  man  was  baptized  ("si  modo  aqua  denuo'  per- 
funderetur)  if  he  only  had  water  poured  on  him  again. "t 
T  mention  this  case,  not  as  approving. of  baptism  without 
water,  but-to  show  how  far  the  primitive  Christians  were 
from  considering  immersion  as  essential. 

Irenaeus  mentions  a  sect  of  Christians  who  baptized 
"  by  an  affusion  of  water  mixed  with  oil."| 

Athanasius  represents  the  Arians  as  administering 
baptism  (qteiciiofuior)  by  sprinkling.  He  does  not  cen- 
sure the  mode,  but  blames  them  for  their  violent  proceed- 
ings, and  for  attaching  a  different  meaning  to  -the  words 
used  in  baptism,  from  that  given  them  by  the  church. || 

Theodoret  reJates  that  the  Eunomians,  in  baptism,  wet 
themselves  only  to  the  breast. § 

Lawrence  baptized  two  persons,  Romanus  and  Lucil- 
lus,  by  affusion.  "  A  little  while  before  he  suffered,"  he 
also  "  baptized,  with  a  pitcher  of  water,  one  of  his  execu- 
tioners."^ 

*  Primitive  Christianity,  Part  i.  Chap.  10.  pp.  300,  321.  . 

f  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,  Chap.  10. 

{  Advers  Haeres.  Lib.  i.  Cap.  23. 

||  Orat.  iii.  against  the  Arians.  $  Haer.  Fab.  Lib.  iv. 

IT  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Part  ii.  pp.  353;356. 


46  MODE    OP    BffctiSM. 

Novatian  became  a  Christian  about  120  years  aftef  the 
apostles  ;  and  "  when  visited  with  sickness,  baptism  was 
administered  to  him,  according  to  the  cusfom  of  those 
times,  by  affusion  or  sprinkling."* 

Basilides  is  mentioned  by  Eusebius  as  having  been 
baptized^in  prison.* 

Constantine  the  Great,  "  being  clothed  with  a  white 
garment,  and  laid  upon  his  bed,  was  baptized  in  a  solemn 
manner  by  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia."t 

Jerome  speaks  of  a  mode  of  baptism  as  common  in  the 
ancient  church,  which  was  not  lo  dip  the  whole  body,  but 
(in  lavacro  ter  mergitare  caput)  a  thrice  dipping  of  the 
hcad.\  Augustine,  as  quoted  by  Gratian,  mentions  the 
same.  "  After  that  you  have  promised  to  believe,  {tertio  • 
capita  vestra  in  sacro  fonte  demersimus)  thrice-  we  dip 
your  head  in  the  sacred  font."|| 

In  the  year  390,  Aurelius  Prudentius,  a  man  of  Consu- 
lar dignity,  a  Christian  and  a  poet,  thus  sings  in  one  of 
his  evening  hymns  :  "  Worshipper  of  God,  remember 
that  thou  didst  go  under  the  (Rorem  sanctum)  the  holy 
dews  of  the  font  and  laver ;" — in  other  words  that  thou 
wast  sprinkled  in  baptism. "§ 

The  Centuriators  (quoting  from  Socrates.  Lib.  vii.  Cap. 
17.)  tell  us  of  a  celebrated  Font,  "  out  of  which  (baptizato 
equa  superfusa).  the  water  is  poured  from  above  on  the 
baptized  person."  They  also  speak  of  a  hypocritical 
Jew,  who  had  offered  himself  for  baptism  in  different 
places  for  mercenary  purposes,  but  "  when  he  came  to 
this  font,  and  there  offered  to  be  baptized,  and  held  his 
head  over  the  font,  the  water  vanished  away  once  and 
again  ;  whereupon  his  fraud  was  discovered." 

*  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  Lib.  vi.  Cap.  5  and  43. 

t  Dupin's  Ecc.  Hist.  Vol.  ii.  p.  84.  J  Advers.  Luciferian. 

||  See  Gratian  de  Consecrat.  Dist.  4. 

§  In  Walker's  doctrine  of  Baptisms,  Chap.  10. 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  47 

Gennadius  of  Marseilles,  who  flourished  about  the  year 
490,  says,  "  The  person  to  be  baptized  makes  confession 
of  his  faith  before  the  priest ;  and  after  confession, 
he  is  (vel  aspergkur  vel  intingitur)  either  sprinkled  tcith 
water,  or  dipped  in  it."* 

Fabian  tells  us  that  Augustine,  the  first  missionary  to 
England,  baptized  ten  thousand  persons  in  a  river,  near 
York,  on  a  Christnras  day.t  He  certainly  could  not  have 
baptized  them  by  immersion. 

In  the  year  499,  Clodovaius  king  of  the  Franks  was 
baptized  by  Remigius,  Arch-bishop  of  Rheims,  not  by 
immersion,  but  (per  infusionem  aquae)  by  the  pouring  of 
water.f 

Bede  frequently  uses  the  terms  tingo,  abluo,  perfundo 
aqua,  in  relation  to  baptism  ;  and  represents  one  Heri- 
baldus  speaking  of  himself  as  baptized  in  this  way. 
"  Unda  perfusus  sum,"  &c.t 

Stephen  II.,.  Bishop  of  Rome,  decreed,  A.  D.  753, 
that  pouring  should  be  considered  as  valid  baptism.  || 

Walafridus  Strabo,  who  flourished  about  the  year  850, 
says,  "  Many  have  been  baptized^  not  only  by  immersion, 
but  also'  (desuper  fundendo)  by  pouring  water  on  them 
from  above  ;  and  they  may  still  be  so.  baptized. "§ 

In  the  year  858.  Nicetas  Serronius  speaks' of  those  (qui 
purifica  aqua  perfusi  sunt)  have  been  baptized  by  pouring.^ 

Liudgerus  is  said  by  Mabillon  to  have  "  baptized  a  lit- 
tle infant,  by  pouring  on  holy  water."  ** 

*  De  Dogmat.  Ecc.  Cap.  74. 

t  In  Walker's  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,  Chap,  10: 1.3. 

t  Ecc.  Hist.  Lib.  v.  Cap.  G.  Baronius  in  his  Annals  (An.Chr.  826)  speaks 
of  die  baptism  of  this  Heribaklus,  king"  of  the  Danes,  in  St.  Alban's  Church 
at  Mentz,  "  by  having  the  water  of  holy  baptism  poured  upon  him." 

||  Concilia  Labbei,  Tom.  vi.  p.^650. 

§  De  Rebus  Ecc.  Cap  xxvi.  p.  415. 

f  Comment,  on  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  40. 
•   **  Acta  Sanctorum  P.  ii.Cap.  7. 


48  MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

"  Estius,  referring  to  times  long  before  the  year  1300, 
vvitnesseth  that  pouring  had  been  much  in  use."* 

Bernard,  A.  D.  1-120,  speaks  of  baptism  as  administer- 
ed by  pouring  (corpus  perfusum  visibiij  elemento.)f 

Otho,  Bishop  of  Bamberg,  a  cotemporary  of  Bernard, 
prescribes  that  baptism  be  administered  in  his  diocese, 
not  by  immersing  the  whole  body,  but  (trina  immersione 
capitis)  by  a  trine  immersion  of  the  head.|  • 

In  the  year  1140,  Gratian  speaks  of  baptism  as  admin- 
istered by  sprinkling.  "  The  blessed  waters  with  which 
men  (asperguntur)  art  sprinkled,  avails  to  their  sanctifi- 
cation."|| 

Hego,  A.  D.  1245,*says,  "If  there  cannot  be  had  a 
sufficiency  of  water  for  the  infant  to  be  wholly  dipped  in 
it,  let  the  baptizer  pour  some  water  upon  the  infant  and 
say,  1  baptize  tliee>  &c.§ 

About  the  year  1255,  Thomas.  Aquinas  discusses  the 
question,  whether  immersion  be  of  the  necessity  of  baptism, 
and  answers  it  in  the  negative  ;  for,  says  he,  "  as  a  wash- 
ing with  water  may  be  made,  not  only  by  immersion \  but 
also  by  aspersion  or  affusion,  so  a  baptism  may  be  made 
by  way  of  sprinkling  or  pouring  on  wetter."^]   .  ' 

A  few  years  later,  Bonaventure  discusses  the  same 
question',  (an  immergeu/lus,  vel  tantummodo  aspergendus 
sit  baptizandus)  and  answers  it  in  the  same  way.  "  It  is 
to  be  presumed,  says  he,  "  that  the  apostles  baptized  by 
sprinkling;  which,  way  is  still  kept  in  many  churches, 
but  mostly  in  the  Gallican."^j 

Durant,  A.  D.  12§0,  says,  "  sometimes  baptism  is  given 
by  immersion,  so  that  the  Whole  child  is  dipped  in  water; 

*  In  P.  Clark's  Scrip.  Grounds  of  In.  Bap.  pp.  128,  129. 
t  Epis.  77.  t  In  Waller's  Doc.  of  Baptisms,  Chap.  10. 

1|  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  4.  §  Magdeberg,  Hist.  Cent.  xiii.  Col.  596. 

IF  In  Walker's  Doc.  of  Baptisms,  Chap.  10. 


MODE    OP    BAPTISM.  49 

and  gometimes  it  is  given  by  aspersion,  when  the  child  is 
sprinkled,  or  water  is  ■poured  upon  it."* 

About  the  same  time,  "the.  Synod  of  Angiers  speaks  of 
dipping  or  pouring  as  used  indifferently  in  baptism."! 

•  Angelus  Clavasius  says,'  (A.  D.  14S0.)  "The  infant, 
in  what  way  soever  he  be  touched"  (with  water)  "  is  bap- 
tized. A  sprinkling,  how  little  soever  it  be,  is  sufficient 
in  case  of  necessity."! 

Erasmus  says,  "  With  us,"  (the  Dutch)  "  they  have 
the  water  poured  on  them  in  baptism  ;  in  England  they 
are  dipped. "|| 

Martin  Bucer,  about  the  year  1520,  says,  "  God  com- 
manded unto  men  such  a  rite,  as  that  either  by  the  in- 
tinction,  ablution,  or  sprinkling  of  water,  they  should  re- 
ceive remission  of  sins."§ 

Sebastian,  Arch-bishop  of  Mentz  directs  (A.  D.  1551,) 
''that  the  priest,  holding  the  child  over  the  font  in  his  left 
hand,  shall  take  water  out  of  the  font  with  his  right  hand 
and  pour  it  upon  the  head  of  the  child  three  times." 

The  form  of  baptism  among  the  English  Exiles  in  the 
reign  of  Queen  Mary,  was  for  the  minister  to  "  take 
water  in  his  hand,  lay  it  on  the  child's  forehead,  and  say, 
J  baptize  thee,"  &c.fl 

Waloeus  says,  "  It  hath  always  been  held  indifferent  in 
the  Christian  church,  whether  baptism  were  administered 
by  a  single  or  a  trine  immersion,  or  whether  immersion  or 
sprinkling  were  used."** 

Chemnitius  says,  "  Whether  the  washing  be  performed 
by  mersion,  tinction,  perfusion,  or  sprinkling,  it  is  a  bap- 
tizing."-^ 

*  De  Ritu  Baptizandi,  Cap.  2. 

t  In  Wall's  Hist.  ofln.  Bap.  P.  ii.  Chap.  9. 

X  In  Walker's  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,  Chap.  10. 

11  In  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Part  ii.  Chap.  S). 

§  Com.  on  Epis.  to  the  Rom.  Chap.  vi.  ^  Book  of  Forms. 

**  Synopsis  Theol.  Disput.  44.        ft  Exam.  Concil.  Trident.  P.  ii.  p.  122. 

5 


50  MODE    OP    BAPTISM. 

Danaeus  says,  "  At  this  day,  they  who  are  to  bejbap- 
tized  are  mostly  sprinkled  only  with  water,  and  not  dip- 
ped into  it."* 

.  Calvin  tells  us  that,  "  The  substance  of  baptism  being 
retained,  the  church,  from  the  "beginning,  enjoyed  a  liber- 
ty of  using  somewhat  differant  rites. "t 

Zelenus  says,  "  Dipping  was  formerly  more  used,  es- 
pecially in  the  hot  countries  of  Judea  ;  but  this  mode  was 
not  universally  practised,  or  essential  to  the  ordinance  of 
baptism."! 

Zanchius  says,  "  As  in  a  matter  of  liberty  and  indiffer- 
"ency,  the  church  sometimes  followed  one  ceremony,  and 
sometimes  the  other,  as  she  judged  most  expedient."! 

Dr.  Wall,  who  had  a  partiality  for  immersion,  says, 
"  On  extraordinary  occasions,  baptism,  by  affusion  of 
water  on  the  face,  was  by  the  ancients  counted  sufficient 
baptism.     Of  this  there  are  many  proofs."\\    ■ 

The  author  of  Letters  to  Bishop  Hoadly,  a  learned  and 
professed  Baptist,  admits  that,  "  for  thirteen  hundred 
years  successively  after  the  apostles,  sprinkling  was  per- 
mitted upon  extraordinary  occasions. "§ 

Mr.  Rohinson,  also  a  learned  Baptist,  admits  that,  "  be- 
fore the  reformation,  sprinkling  was  held  valid,  in  cases 
of  necessity. "fl 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  authorities,  the  public  will  be 
able  to  form  a  judgment  as  to  the  opinions  and  practices 
which,  in  different  ages,  have  prevailed  in  relation  to  bap- 
tism.    That  immersion   is  baptism,  I  do  not  doubt ;  .and 

*  Isagoge  Christiana  P.  iv.  Cap.  29,  p.  522. 

t  In  Reed's  Apology  pp.  240,  113. 

X  In  P.  Clark's  Scrip.  Grounds  of  In.  Bap.  p.  128. 

||  Hist,  of  In.  Pap.  Part.  ii.  Chap.  9.  §  Plain  Account,  &e.  p.  16. 

11  Hist,  of  Baptism,  p.  116.  This  necessity  is  denned  by  Lyndwood, 
who  wrote  An.  1420,  to  be  "  danger  of  death ;  a  state  of  hostility  ;  an  in- 
cursion of  thieves ;  an  obstruction  of  the  road ;  a  legal  disability,"  &c. 
Provinciale,  Lib.  iii.  tit.  25. 


MODE    OP     BAPTISM.  51 

that  this  mode  of  baptizing,  at  some  periods  and  in  some 
places,  has  been  more  common  than  any  other,  I  see  no 
reason  to  deny-  But  until  the  rise  of  the  Anabaptists  (as 
they  were  called)  in  the  sixteenth  century,  I  find  no  ac- 
count of  any  church,  or  sect  of  Christians,  which  held 
that  immersion  was  essential  to  the  ordinance.  Some 
seem  to  have  practised  this  mode  (connected  with  various 
idle  ceremonies)  ujiiformly,  except  in  cases  of  necessity  ; 
others  immersed  less  frequently,  but  generally  ;  others 
still,  baptized  indifferently,  by  immersion,  pouring,  or 
sprinkling,  according  to  circumstances  ;  while  all  agreed 
that  immersion  was  not  essential,  bat.  that"  baptism  in 
•other  modes  was  equally  valid. 

To  the  arguments  adduced  in  the  foregoing  pages  I 
know  of  but  one  objection  of  any  importance,  which  has 
not  been  noticed.  The  Greeks,  it  is  said,  understand 
their  native  language  better  than  foreigners,  and  in  their 
church  baptism  is  uniformly  administered  by  immersion. 
To  this  I  reply, 

1.  That  while  it»isiikely  the  modern  Greek  may  under- 
stand his  native  language  better,  in  some  respects,  than 
foreigners,  it  is  not  likely  that  he  better  understands  the 
meaning  of  ;'«-rr(>>,  as  used  by  ancient  Greek  authors, 
and  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.     But, 

2.  The  Greeks  do  not  consider  immersion  as  essential 
to  baptism.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that,  although 
they  ordinarily  baptize  in  .this  way,,  still  when  sickness  or 
other  circumstances  occur  to  prevent,  they  administer 
the  ordinance  in  other  modes.*  Of  course  they  must  re- 
gard immersion  as  not  essential ;  and  this  is  all  for  which 
Pedobaptists  contend. 

*  Dr.  Wall  tells  us,  that  the  Greeks  "  hardly  count  a  child,  except  in  case 
of  sickness,  well  baptized  without  immersion  ;'  which  implies  that,  in  cases 
sickness,  if  not  in  others,  they  do  count  their  children  well  baptized  although 
they  have  not  been  immersed. 


PART  II. 

ON  THE  SUBJECTS  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  between  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists  respecting,  not  only  the  mode,  but  the  sub- 
jects of  Christian  baptism  ;  and  in  entering  on  the  discus- 
sion before  uSj  it  is  important  that  the  precise  point  of 
difference  should  be  stated.  It  is  not,  whether  unbaptiz* 
ed  addlts,  who  give  no  evidence  of  faith,  are  proper  sub- 
jects of  the  ordinance.  We  agree  with  our  brethren  that 
they  are  not.  Hence,  we  agree  with  them  in  admitting 
the  full  force  of  those  precepts  which  enjoin  repentance 
and  faith  on  adults  in  order  to  baptism.  Neither  is  it  the 
question,  whether  those  unbaptized  adults,  who  give  evi- 
dence of  faith,  are  proper  subjects.  ,  We  agree  with  our 
brethren  that  they  are.  The  sole  point  of  difference  be- 
tween us  and  them,  in  respect  to  the  proper  subjects  of 
baptism,  is  this: — We  affirm,  and  they  deny,  that  chil- 
dren, ivho  are  under  the  care  of  believing,  covenanting  pa- 
rents should  be  baptized* 

To  establish  and  defend  what  is  here  affirmed  will  be 
my  object  in  the  following  Sections.  It  will  be  necessa- 
ry, in  some  of  the  first  of  them,  to  attend  to  subjects 
which  have  an  indirect  though  important  bearing  on  the 
point  under  consideration. 

*  It  will  be  said,  perhaps,  that  we  differ  from  Baptists  in  another  impor- 
tant point  :—They  affirming  and  we  denying  that  believers  who  have  been 
baptized  in  infancy  should  be  r&baptized.  But  as  they  affirm  this,  because 
they  think  infant  baptism  wrong ;  and  we  deny  it,  because  we  think  infant 
baptism  right ;  the  difference  obviously  respects  infant  baptism  only  ; 
and  the  question  is  left  as  .before  stated. 


SUBJECTS    Or     BAPTISM.  53 

Section  I. 

The  Visible  Church  the  same  under  both  Dispensations. 

i%  My  Dove,  my  undefiled  is  but  one ;  she  is  the  ODly  one  of  her 
Mother." — Cant.  vi.  9. 

The  relation  subsisting  in  ancient  times,  between  the 
congregation  of.Israel  and  the  Divine  Being  was  very  In- 
timate and  peculiar.  They  had  entered  into  solemn  cov- 
enant with  him,  and  he  with  them.  They  had  '  avouch- 
ed the  Lord  to  be  their  God,  to  walk  in  his  ways,  to  keep 
his  statutes,  his  commandments,  and  his  judgments,  and 
to  hearken  to  his  voice  ;  and  the  Lord  had  avouched 
them  to  be  his  peculiar  people,  as  he  had  promised  them.' 
Deut.  xxvi.  17,  18.  Accordingly,  God  speaks  of  the  Is- 
raelites throughout  the  Old  Testament  as  his  people,  his 
own  people  ;  and  they  speak  of  him^as  in  a  peculiar  sense 
their  God.  They  were  the  depositaries  of  the  true  reli- 
gion.; had  made  profession  of  this  religion  ;  and  were 
manifestly,  a  church — a  visible  church.  They  are.spoken 
of  as  a  church  in  the  New  Testament.  "  This  {Moses) 
is  he  who  was  in  the  (ey.yj.eaiu)  church  in  the  wilderr 
ness."    •  Acts  vii.  38. 

It  will  be  my  object  here  to  show,  that  the  visible 
church,. under  both  dispensations,  has  been  substantially 
the  same;  or. that  the  general,  visible,  Christian  commu- 
nity is  but  a  continuation  and  enlargement  of  '  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel.' 

I  do  not  mean,  indeed,  that  there  have  been  no  changes : 
there  certainly  have  been  changes,,  in  aocommodationto 
the  altered  state  of  things.  While  the  people  of  God 
were  looking,  forward.to  a  'promised  Saviour,  they  needed 
types,  and  rites,  and  bloody  sacrifices  which,  since  his 
appearance,  have,  for  the  best  reasons,  been  taken  out  of 
the  way.     Still,  the  abolishing  of  these  rites,  and  the 


54  SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM. 

ushering  in'  of  the  new  dispensation,  did  not  affect  the 
identity  of  the  church.* 

1.  The*  identity  of  the  visible  church  under  both  dis- 
pensations may  be  argued  from  the  identity  of  the  real 
church. — The  real  church  on  earth  comprises  all  the  true 
friends  of  God  existing  in  the  world.  It  embodies  all  the 
true  religion,  the  piety,  which  is  to  be  found  among  men. 
It  is  admitted,  that  this  body  has  been,  at  all  periods,  the 
same.  The  true  friends  of  God  have  always  sustained 
the  same  spiritual  relations  to  him,  and  to  one  another ; — 
they  have  always  belonged  to  the  same  holy  family,  and 
this  family  is  the  church.  But  if  the  real  church  has 
been,  in  all  periods,  the  same,  so  has  the  visible  church. 
What  is  the  visible  church  ?  It  consists  of  those  who,  by 
a  credible  profession,  appear  to  belong  to  the  real  church 
— appear  to  be  truly  sanctified  persons.  It  -is  nothing 
more  than  the  real  church  bodied  forth,  made  visible  to 
the  apprehension  of  men  ; — so  that  we  can  no  more  con- 
ceive of  two  distinct  visible  churches,  while  we  admit  the 
identity  of  the  real  church,  than  we  can  conceive  of  any 
thing  else  as  visibly  two,  which  yet  appears  to  be  one  and 
the  same. 

2.  Under  both  dispensations,  the  church  has .  profess- 
ed the  same  religion. — No  one  doubts  that  true  religion 
has  bedn  in  all  periods  the  same. 

There  has  been  but  one  path  from  earth  to  heaven — 
but  .one  way  of  salvation  by  a  Redeemer.  This  religion 
is  revealed  and  inculcated  in  the  Bible  ;  and  the  r-eligion 
of  the  Bible  is  one.  The  religion  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  not  distinct  fr*bm  that  of  the  New,  like  the  religion  of 

*  John  the  Baptist  and  our  Saviour  preached,  "Repent  ye,  for  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  at  hand."  Matt.  iii.  2,  and  iv.  17.  The  phrase,  kingdom 
of  heaven,  is  used  by  the  Evangelists  in  a  variety  of  significations.  In  the 
places  referred  to,  it  imports,  not  a  new  visible  church,  but  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation, which  was  about  to  be  introduced,  and  to  displace  the  dispensa- 
tion of  the  law. 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  55 

Brumha  or  Mahomet ; — in  all  essential  points  it  is  the 
same.  But  the  Israelites  were  professors  of  this  religion 
as  truly  as  Christians  are.  The  Old  Testament  was  com- 
mitted to  them,  and  they  professed  to  receive  and  follow 
it.  Both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  are  committed 
to  us,  and  we  profess  to  make  them  the  rule  of  our  faith 
and  practice.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  church,  un- 
der both  dispensations,  has  professed  the  same  religion — : 
the  religion  of  the  Bible. 

This  argument  may  be  presented  in  a.  somewhat  differ- 
ent light. —The  religion  of  the  Bible,  consists  essentially 
in  its  doctrines;  and  what  doctrines  are  how  professed  in 
the  church,  which  were  not  professed  in  the  church  of 
Israel  1  What  important  doctrines'  are  taught  in  the  New 
Testament,  which  are  omitted  in  the.  Old  ?  In  the  New 
Testament,  to  be  sure,  the  doctrines  of  religion  are  set 
forth  with  greater  clearness,  particularity,  and  force,  but 
it  would  be  difficult  to  show,  except  in  mntters  of  inferior 
importance,  that  it  'contains  any  new  truths. 

Another  essential  part  of  .the  religion  of  the  Bibje  is 
its  requisitions  ;  and  in  these  there  is  a  striking  uniform- 
ity.— The  demands  of  the  law  have  been  the  same  under 
both  dispensations.  "  Thou  sjialt  love  the  Lord  thy  God, 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul)  and  with  all  thy 
strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind,  and  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self."— The  demands  of  the  gospel,  too,  have  been  the 
same..  Repentance,  faith,  submission,  hope,  all  the  holy 
affections  towards  God,  and  all  the  benevolence  and  kind- 
ness  to  man,  which  are  required  of  Christians  now,  were 
as  strictly  required  of  Israelites  under  fhe  former  dispen- 
sation.— Indeed,  those  directions  which  go  to  constitute 
the  discipline  of  the  church,  are  inculcated  in  the  New 
Testament  almost  precisely  as  in  the  Old.  The  direc- 
tion of  Christ  now  is,  "  If  thy  brother  .tiespass  against 
thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault."  Formerly  it  was,  "  Thou 


56  SUBJECTS    OP     BAPTISM. 

shalt. not  hate  thy  brother  in  thine  heart;  thou  shalt  in 
any  wise  rebuke  thy  neighbor,  and  not  suffer  sin  upon 
him."  Lev.  xix.  17.  The  direction  now  is,  "  If  thy 
brother  repent,  forgive  him."  Formerly  it  was,  '  When 
the  offender  shall  bring  his  sin  offering,  and  in  token  of 
repentance  lay  his  hand  upon  its  head,  the  victim  shall 
be  slain,  and  he  shall  be  forgiven.'  Lev.  Chap.  iv.  The 
direction  now  is,  '  If  the  offender  will  not  hear  the  church, 
but  continues  obstinate,  let  him  be  cut  .off  and  become  to 
you  as  an  heathen.'  Formerly  it  was,  'The  soul  that  do- 
eth  aught  presumptuously,  and  will  not  he'arken  to  the 
priest,  nor  the  judge,  the  same  hath  reproached  the  Lord, 
and  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people.'* 

Still  another  part  of  the  religion  of  the  Bible  is  its  prom- 
ises ;  and  what*  better  promises  has  the  church  under  the 
present  dispensation,  than  those  which  it  formerly  enjoy- 
ed 1  Indeed,  are  not  the  identical  promises  to  the- an- 
cient Zion  still  relied  on  as  valid,  and-as  applicable  to  the 
existing  church  of  Christ  ?  .  "•BeholU  I  have  graven  thee 
upon  the  palms  of  my  hands.;' thy  walls  are  continually 
before  me.  '  Kings  shall  be  thy  nursing  fathers,  and 
queens  thy  nursing'  mothers.  They  shall  bow  down  to 
thee  with  their  face  toward  the  earth,  and  lick  up  the 
dust  of  thyfeet;  and  thou  sfialt  know  that"  I  am  the 
Lord."  _    Is.  xlix.  16,  23. 

It  is  plain,  I  trust,  to  every  reader,  that  the  religion  of 
the  two  Testaments  is  the  same ;  and  that  the  church, 
under  both  dispertsations.  has  actually  professed  the  same 
religion.  Of  course,  in  regard  to  its  outward  religious 
profession — its  visibility,  it  has  been  the  same  church. 

3.  Numerous  declarations,  which  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment were  made  to  the  ancient  church,  are  in  the  New 
Testament  applied  to  the  Christian  church.      For   in- 

*  Compare  Matt,  xviii.  17,  and  Numb,  xv,  30,  and  Deut.  xvii.  12. 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  57 

stance,  it  is  said  in  the  Psalms,  "  I  will  declare  thy  name 
unto  my  brethren ;  in  the  midst  of  the  congregation  (ex- 
xh;  attic  Sept.)  I  will  praise  thee."  Ps.  xxii.  22.  But  in 
the  New  Testament  we  learn,  that* this  is  a  declaration 
of  Christ,  made  in  reference  to  his  church.  "  Both  he 
that  sanctifieth  and  they  who  are-sanctified  arc  all  of  one; 
for  which  cause  he  (Christ)  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them 
brethren,  saying,  I  will  declare  thy  name  unto  my  breth- 
ren ;  in  the  midst  of  the  church  (exxl^aiuz)  will  I  sing 
praise  unto  thee."  Heb:  ii.  11,  12.  It  follows,  that  ''the 
congregation,"  spoken  of  in  the  Psalms,  and  "the  church" 
spoken  of  in  this  latter  passage,  are  the  same  body. 

God  said  of  his  ancient  church,  "I  will  walk  among 
you,  and  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people." 
Lev.  xxvi.  12.  The  Apostle  quotes  this  language,  to- 
gether with  other  expressions  from  the  Old  Testament, 
and  applies  them  to  the  church  at  Corinth.  "  As  God 
hath  said,  I  will  dwell  in  them,  and  walk  in  them,  and  I 
will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people ;  and  I 
will  be  a  Father  unto  you,  and  ye  shall  be  my  sons  and 
daughters,  saith  the  Lord  Almighty.  Having,  therefore, 
these  promises,  let  us  cleanse  ourselves,"  fyc.  2  Cor.  vi. 
16 — 18.  How  could  Paul  represent  the  Corinthian  breth- 
ren as  having  these  promises,  and  as  being  under  conse- 
quent obligations,  to  cleanse  themselves,  unless  he  consid- 
ered them  as  belonging  to  the  same  church  to  which  these 
promises  were  originally  made  ? 

In  the  following  language,  God  addressed  his  church 
under  the  former  dispensation  :  "  If  ye  will  obey  my  voice 
and  keep  my  covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treas- 
ure unto  me  above  all  people ;  and  ye  shall  be  unto  me  a 
kingdom  of  priest's,  and  a  holy  nation."  Ex.  xix.  5,  6. 
In  almost  the  same  language,  he  addresses  his  church 
under  the  Christian  dispensation ;    "  Ye  are  a  chosen 


58  SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM. 

generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar 
people."     1  Pet.  ii.  9. 

4.  The  prophecies  of  Scripture  clearly  show,  tlfat  the 
present  visible  church  is  the  same  with  the  church  of  Is- 
rael. 

John  the  Baptist  predicted  of  him  win  was  to  come 
after  him,  not  that  he  should  destroy,  but  that  he  should 
"  thoroughly  purge  his  floor."  Matt.  iii.  12.  Accord- 
ingly, the  church  was  purified,  but  not  destroyed,  at  the 
introduction  of  the  Christian  dispensation.* 

Christ  predicted  that  many  should  "  come  from  the 
east,  and  from  the  west,  and  sit  down  with  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  while  "the 
children  of  the  kingdom  should  be  cast  out  into  outer 
darkness."  Matt.  viii.  11,  12.  What  are  we  to  under- 
stand here  by  the  phrase,  "  kingdom  of  heaven  1"  Not 
the  kingdom  of  glory,  surely  ;  for  none  of  the  children  of 
that  kingdom  will  ever  be  cast  out.  The  phrase  must 
denote  in  this  place,  as  it  does  in  others,  the  visible 
church.  And  the  prediction  of  our  Saviour  was,  that 
when  the  Jews  were  ejected  for  their  unbelief,  the  Gen- 
tiles should  come  and  sit  down  in  the  same  church  "  with 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob." 

In  the  parable  of  the  vineyard,  Christ  also  predicted, 
that  the  same  vineyard  or  church,  in  which  the  Jews  had 
done  so  wickedly,  should  be  taken  from  them  and  given 
to  the  "Gentiles.  "  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken 
from  you,  and  given  to  a  nation-bringing  forth  the  fruits 
thereof."  Matt.  xxi.  43. 
"  In  proof  of  the  point  under  consideration,- 1  might  ad- 

*  The  introduction  of  the  new  dispensation  is  s'poken  of  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  as  "  the  time  of  (dioiodwcrsws')  reformation"  or  emendation. 
Chap.  ix.  10.  On  the  theory  here  opposed,  it  must  have  been  to  the  an- 
cient church  a  time,  not  of  reformation,  but  destruction.  Reformation  nec- 
essarily implies  a  continuance  of  the  thing  reformed. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  59 

cluce  numerous  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament.  In- 
deed, all  the  anciept  predictions  oflhe  ingathering  of  the  ■ 
Gentiles,  and  of  the  future  prosperity  and  glory  of  the 
church,  were  made,  not  to  a  new  church  to  be  established 
under  the  gospel,  but  to  the  Zion  of  the  Old  Testament, 
the  church  at  that  time  existing  in  Israel.*  "  The  Lord 
shall  arise  upon  thee,  and  his  glory  shall  be  seen  upon 
thee,  and  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to  thy  light,  and  kings 
to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising.  Lift  up  thine  eyes  round 
ab*out  and  see  :  all  they  gather  themselves  together,  they 
come  to  thee.  Thy  sons  shall  come  from  far,  and  thy 
daughters  shall  be  nursed  at  thy  side.  Then  thou  shalt 
see  and  llow  together,  and  thine  heart  shall  fear  and  be 
enlarged,  because  the  abundance  of  the  sea  shall  be  con- 
verted unto  thee  ;  the  forces  of  the  Gentiles  shall  come 
unto  thee.  The  sons  also  of  them  that  afflicted  .thee  shall 
come  bending  unto  thee  ;  and  all  them  that  despised  thee 
shall  bow  themselves  down  at  the  soles  of  thy  feet ;  and 
they  shall  call  thee  the  city  of  the  Lord,  the  Zion  of  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel."     Is.  Chap.  ix. 

There  is  no  resisting  tl?e  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from 
these  and  similar  passages,  many  of  which  might  be  quot- 
ed from  the  Old  Testament,  but  by  supposing  that  it  is 
the  real,  and  not  the  visible  church,  which  is  here  ad- 
dressed. But  how  will  those  who  adopt  this  hypothesis 
interpret  predictions  like  the  following?  *'  The  children 
which  thou  shalt  have,  after  thou  hast  lost  the  other,  shall 
say  again  in  thine  ears,  The  place  is  too  strait  for  me  ; 
give  place  .to  me  that  I  may*  dwell.  Then  thou  shalt  say 
in  thine  heart,  Who  hath  begotten  me  "these,  seeing  I 
have  lost  my  children,  and  am  desolate,  a  captive,  remov- 
ing to  and  fro  ?"  Is.  xli'x.  20,21.  Will  it  be  pretended 
that  this  prediction  belongs  to  the  real,  as  distinct  from 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  C. 


60  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

the  visible  church  of  God  ?  Has  the  real  church  ever  lost 
.any  of  her  children?  '  Has  any  true  believer  ever  fallen 
finally  away? — It  cannot  be  denied  tliat  this  and  similar 
predictions  relate  to  the  visible,  church  in  Israel)  and  es- 
tablish the  fact  that  converted  Gentiles  under  the  new 
dispensation  are  gathered  into  the  same  church. 

5.  The  identity  of  the  church  under  both  dispensa- 
tions is  certain  from  the  declarations  of  Scripture. — The 
Apostle  Paul  teaches  (Rom.  xi.  17 — 24.)  that  believing 
Gentiles  are  graffed  into  the  same  olive  tree,  from  which 
the  unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  off,  and  into  which  the 
restored  Jews  shall  be  grafFed  again.  What  are  we  to 
understand  by  this  olive  tree  ?  Not  Christ :  for  none 
who  are  truly  interested  in  him  are  ever  broken  off.  Not 
the  real,  spiritual  church  ;  for  the  same  reason.  The 
olive  tree  plainly  represents  the  visible  chufch,  the  branch- 
es of  which  are  attached  to  it  by  a  profession  of  godliness.* 
From  this,  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  off.  Into 
the  same,  the  believing  Gentiles  are  graffed.  And  into 
the  same,  the  .restored  posterity  of  Abraham  will  at  length 
be  graffed  again.  Hence,  the  "sameness  of  the  church, 
under  both  dispensations,  is  in  this  Chapter  incontestably 
established,  f 

*  Jeremiah,  addressing  the  church,  says,  "  The  Lord  called  thy  name  a 
green  olive  tree"  Chap  xi.  16.  Of  the  church  in  Israel  the  prophet  Hosea 
says,  "  His  branches  shall  spread,  and  his  beauty  shall  be  as  the  olive  tree." 
Chap.  xiv.  6. 

t  "The  (aqyisluiog\  wild  olive,"  says  Professor  Stuart,  was  often 
grafted  into  the  fruitful  one,  when  it.began^to  decay,  and  thus  not  only 
brought  forth  fruit,  but  caused  the  decaying  olive  to  revive- and  flourish. 
The  image  which  the  Apostle  here  employs  is,  therefore,  a  very  vivid  one. 
Hie  Gentiles  had  been  grafted  in  upon  the  Jewish  church,  and  had  caused 
this  decayed  tree  to  revive  and  flourish.  But  still  the  Apostle  means  to 
hold  in  check  any  exultation  of  the  Gentiles  on  account  of  this.  He  reminds 
them,  that  after  alLthey  are  not  the  stock,  but  only  grafts;  that  the  root 
and  fatness  of  the  good  olive  have  been  transferred  to  them,  only  because 
they  have  been  grafted  into  it. — All  this  shows  that,  in  the  Apostle's  view, 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  61 

In  further  proof  of  this  point,  I  shall  adduce  but  one 
passage  more.  The  Apostle,  addressing  his  Ephesian  breth- 
ren, says,  "  Wherefore  remember,  that  ye,  being  in  time 
past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh were  without  Christ,  be- 

•  ing  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers 
from  the'covenants  of  promise,  having  no  hope,  and  with- 
out God  in  the  world."     Eph.  ii.  11,  12.     Does  the  form 

*-of  expression  here  used  necessarily  imply,  that  the  Ephe- 
sian brethren  were  no  longer  "  without  Christ,  having  no 
hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world  !'•'  Cut  it  equally 
implies,  that  they  were  no  longer  "  aliens  from  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel."  It  i#  just  as  plain  from  this  pas- 
sage, that  thes  :>  Christians  were  now  mtnibcrs  of  the  com- 
monwealth or  church  of  Israel,  as  it  is  that  they  belonged 
to  Christ,  enjoyed  the  comforts  of  hope,  or  loved  and 
served  the  God  of  heaven. 

6.  There  is  evidence  from  fact,  that  the  church,  un- 
der both  dispensations,  is  the  same.  Dflring  Christ's  pub- 
lic ministry,  his  disciples  were  members  of  the  Jewish 
Church.  They  attended  the  festivals  and  other  instituted 
services  of  that  church,  and  "  walked  in  all  its  command- 
ments and  ordinances  blameless."  After  tl»e  ascension 
of  Christ,  we  find  them  pillars  in  the  Christian  church. 
Had  they,  in  the  mean  time,  been  cat  off  from  one  church 
and  gathered  into  another  ?  And  if  so,  when  and  how 
was  this  done?  And  what  record  have  we,  in  the  Now 
.Testament,  of  any  such  proceeding  ?^-In  the  hour  of 
Christ's  death,  important  changes  were^  indeed  accom- 
plished. The  old  dispensation  was  abolished,  the  new 
one  ushered  in,  and  the  church  was  purged  of  its  un- 
believing members  ;  but  the  stock  of  the  olive   tree,  with 

there  has  been,  in  reality,  bid  one  church  ;  the  ancient  Jewish  one  being  the 
foundation,  the  Christian  one  the  superstructure  and  completion  of  the 
building."     Comment,  on  Rom.  xi.  17. 

6 


62  SUBJECTS     OF    BAPTISM, 

its  few  green  branches,  remained  the  same,  and  into  it 
multitudes  were  speedily  engrafted. ' 

In  short,  nothing  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  the 
disciples  belonged  to  the  same  church,  on  the  day.  of 
Pentecost  and  afterwards,  to  which  they  belonged  on  the 
night  when  they  partook  of  the  fassover-^a.  sacrament  of 
the  old  dispensation — with  their  blessed  Lord.  And  from 
this  fact,  it  follows  conclusively,  that  the  church,  under  . 
both  dispensations, "has  been  the  same. 

Section  IL 

T.he  Covenant  of  the  Visible  Church  the  same  under  both  dispensations. 

That  the  covenant  of  the  visible  church  has  been  the 
same  under  both  dispensations  is  an  incontestable  infer- 
ence from  the  truth  established  in  the  previous  section. 
The  church  is  constituted  by  its  covenant ;  and  the  con- 
nexion between  cnurch  and  covenant  is  of  such  a  nature, 
that  if  the  one  is  essentially  changed,  the  other  must  be  : 
or  if  one  can  be  shown  to  remain  unchanged,  the  same 
must  be  true  respecting  the  other.  But  it  has  been  prov- 
ed that  the  ohurch  continues  the  same.  It  may  be  safely 
concluded,  therefore,  that  the  covenant  of  the  church  is 
essentially  the  same.  • 

What  was  the  covenant  of  the  church  of  Israel  ?  Not 
the  Sinatic  covenant ;  for  God  had  promised  to  be  the 
God  of  Israel,  and  when  speaking  of  them,  uniformly  calls 
them  his  people,  long  previous  to  the  promulgation  of  the 
covenant  from  Sinai.*  The  covenant  of  the  ancient 
church  was  unquestionably  the  covenant  ivith  Abraham. 
Here,  God  first  promises  to  be  the  God  of  Abraham  and 
his  seed.  Immediately  after  the  giving  of  this  covenant, 
God  begins  to  designate  the   family  of  Abraham  as  his 

*  See  Exodus  iii.  6,  7 


SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  63 

people^  And  in  subsequent  Scripture,  when  speaking  of 
them  as  his  people,  he  usually  annexes  some  express  re- 
ference to  his  covenant  dealings  with  Abraham.* 

That  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  the  covenant  of 
the  church  of  Israel,  is  evident  from  the  Mosaic  institu- 
tions themselves.  The  design  of  these  institutions  was, 
not  to  separate  a  people  with  whom  God  had  no  previous 
covenant  relation,  and  form  them  into  a  church,- but  to 
establish  Israel  to  be -his  people,  and  that  he  might  be 
their  God,  as  he  had  "sworn  unto  their  fathers,  to  Abra- 
ham, to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob."  Deut.  xxix.  13.  Since, 
then,  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  the  covenant  of 
the  ancient  visible  church ;  and  since  the  church  has 
been*  under  both  dispensations,  the  same  ;  it  follows  that 
the  covenant  with  Abraham  must  now  be  the  covenant  of 
the  visible  Christian  church. t 

That  the  covenant  with  Abraham  still  exists,  as  the 
covenant  of  the  church,  may  be  shown  from  other  con- 
siderations. 

1.  It  still  exists,  because  it  has  never  been  abolished. 
As   God  established   this  covenant,   and   gave   it   to  his 

*  •'  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel ;  for  l.c  liath  visited  and  redeemed 
his  people to  perform  the  mercy  promised  to  our  fathers,  and  to  re- 
member his  holy  covenant;  the  oath  which  he  sware  to  our  father  Abraham," 
&c.     Luke  i.68— 1:1 

t  Some  Pedobaptists  have  considered  this  covenant  as  the  covenant  of 
Grace;  but  I  prefer  to  speak  of  it. as  the  covenant  of  the  church.  The  cov- 
enant bf  grace  is  strictly  this, '  Repent,  and  ye  shall  be  forgiven  ;  believe,  and 
ye  shall  be  saved  5'  and  all  who  enter  into  it  are  of  course,  pious  persons. 
It  is  believed  that  the  covenant  of  the  church,  under  both  dispensations, 
comprises  the  covenant  of  grace ;  but  it  also  comprises  certain  other  things, 
to  denote  its  visibility.  Many  have  lived  and  died  in  the  covenant  of  grace 
who  have  not  entered  ijito  the  covenant  of  the  visible  church  ;  and  more, 
probably,  under  both  dispensations,  have  entered  professedly  into  the  cove- 
nant of  the  church,  who  have  had  no  interest  in  the  covenant  of  grace. — I 
make  these  remarks,  for  the  purpose  of  distinguishing  between  these  cove- 
nants, and  to  show  the  propriety  of  considering  the  covenant  with  Abraham 
as  #e  covenant  of  the  church. 


64  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

church,  it  must  continue  till  it  is  abolished  by  the  same 
authority.  Where,  then,  is  the  evidence  that  God  has 
abolished  his  covenant  with  Abraham?  Suffice  it  to  say 
that  there  is  no  such  evidence  in  the  Bible. 

It  has  been  said,  indeed,  that  in  the  change  of  the  dis- 
pensations— the  removal  of  the  Levitical  law — the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham  was  doubtless  abolished.  But  Paul, 
it  seems,  judged  differently.  He  assures  us  that  the  cov- 
enant with  Abraham,  "which  was  confirmed  before  of 
God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make 
the  promise  of  none  effect."  Gal.  iii.  17. 

It  has  been  said,  too,  that  the  removal  of  circumcision, 
the  ancient  token  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  affords 
evidence  of  the  abolition"of  the  covenant  itself.  But  a 
visible  token  is  no  essential  part  of  a  covenant.  Mutual 
engagements  may  be  binding  without  any  token.  Con- 
sequently, God  may  have  removed  the  ancient  token  of 
his  covenant,  or  may  have  exchanged  it  for  another  of 
similar  import,  and  still  the  covenant  remain  the  same  as 
before. 

2.  That  the  covenant  with  Abraham  is  still  the  cove- 
nant of  the  church,  is  evident  from  its  promises  and  re- 
quirements, or  from  its  very  nature.  Every  literal  cove- 
nant consists  essentially  in  promises  and  requirements. 
If,  therefore,  the  covenant  with  Abraham  shall  be  found 
to  present  the  same  general  promises  and  requisitions 
which  are  held  forth  to  believers  under  the  gospel,  the 
conclusion  cannot  be  avoided,  that  this  is  still  the  cove- 
nant of  the  church. 

The  covenant  with  Abraham,  like  the  gospel,  exhibits 
a  Saviour  as  the  grand  object  of  faith.  "  In  thy  seed" 
(which  is  Christ)  "  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  Gen.  xii.  3,  and  xxii.  18.  This  covenant  con- 
tains promises  of  all  needful  temporal  blessings,  Gen.  xvii. 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  '  65 

8  :  and  promises  of  the  like  description  are  found  in  the 
gospel.  Matt.  vi.  33.  1  Tim.  iv.  8.  Here  are  promises 
of  great  prosperity  to  the  church,  Gen.  xvii.  2;  and  such 
promises- are  repeated  throughout  the  Bible.  Here,  too, 
are  promises,  in  which  Abraham  saw  his  title  to  heaven, 
Gen.  xvii.  8,  and  Heb.  xi.  10  ;  and  the  same  precious 
promises  are  still  good  to  believers.  In  this  covenant  are 
promises  of  distinguished  honor  for  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
Gen.  xvii.  6;  and  his  spiritual  seed  find  such  promises  in 
the  New  Testament.  In  short,  God  here  promises  to  be 
a  God  to  his  people  and  their  children  after  them,  Gen. 
xvii.  7  ;  and  a  greater  promise  never  has  been  made,  nor 
can  be,  in  this  or  in  the  coming  world.  Ileb.  viii  10. 
Rev.  xxi.  7.* 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  requirements  of  the  covenant 
under  consideration.  In  promising  to  be  the  God  of 
Abraham,  God  virtually  required  Abraham  to  accept  of 
hirh  as  his  God  and  portion.  In  holding  up  the  Messiah 
as  an  object  of  faith,  he  required  him  to  believe  in  the. 
promised  Messiah.  In  requiring  circumcision,  he  re- 
quired that  of  which  circumcision  was  an  emblem,  viz.  a 
renewal  of  the  heart  to  holiness.  And  he  expressly  re- 
quired Abraham  to  walk  before  him  and  be  perfect.  Gen. 
Xvii.  1.  Has  God  ever  ceased  to  make  these  require- 
ments? Or  will  he  cease  to  make  them  to  the  end  of  the 
world  1 — We  see,  then,  from  the  promises  and  require- 
ments of  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  or  from  its  very 
nature,  that  it  still  exists  as  the  covenant  of  the  church. 

Among  the  promises  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  I 
have  included  the  memorable  promise,  first  recorded  in 
the  twelfth  Chapter  of  Genesis,  "  In  thee  shall  all  the  fam- 
ilies of  the  earth  be  blessed."     It  is  admitted  by  the  more 

*  In  the  interpretation  above  given  to  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  I  am 
fully  supported  by  Mr  Carson,  a  late  distinguished  Baptist  writer  on  the 
subject.     For  his  statements  at  length,  see  Appendix,  Note  D. 

*6 


66  '    SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

intelligent  Baptists,  that  this  is  a  "  gospel  promise,"  and 
"  the  ever  memorable  charter  of  all  the  blessings  which 
Jewish  and  Gentile  believers  enjoy  through.  Christ."  But 
then  it  is  insisted  that "  this  promise  is  not  contained  in  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  but  in  a  covenant  made  with  ' 
Abraham  twenty-four  years  before."* 

It  would  seem  that  the  controversy,  so  far  as  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham  is  concerned,  is  here  brought  within 
narrow  limits.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  the  promise  above 
quoted  is  a  part  of  this  covenant,  it  can  never  more  be 
disputed  that  this  covenant  comprises  the  covenant  of 
grace.  It  will  be  proved,  that  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham is  "  the  ever  memorable  charter  of  all  the  bless- 
ings, which  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers  enjoy  through 
Christ." 

It  is  manifest  that  God  made  but  one  covenant  with 
Abraham.  His  covenant  transactions  with  the  patriarch 
are  spoken  of  throughout  the  Scriptures  in  the  singular 
.form.  "The  Lord  thy  God  will  not  forget  the  covenant 
of  the  fathers."  Deut.  iv.  31.  "To  remember  his  holy 
covenant,  the  oath  which  he  aware  to  Abraham."  Luke 
i.  72.  "  Ye  are  the  children  of  the,  covenant  which  God 
made  with  our  fathers."  Acts  iii.  25.  In  these  and  the 
parallel  passages,  the  covenant  with  Abraham  is  spoken 
of  as  one. 

There  is  as  much  reason  to  suppose  that  God  made 
eight  distinct  covenants  with  Abraham,  as  that  he  made 
more  than  one.  God  appeared  to  him  and  addressed  him 
in  covenant  language  at  eight  different  times  ;t  nor  is 
there  anything  in  the  subjects  on  which  he  addressed 
him,  which  would  lead  us  to  fix  on  two  covenants,  rather 
than  on  eight.     Those,  therefore,  who  do  not  believe  that 

*  Judson's  Sermon,  p.  24. 

t  Gen.  xii.  1  and  7;  xiii.  14;  xv.  1 ;  xvii ;  xviii ;  xxi.  12;  xxii.  15. 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  G7 

God  made  eight  distinct  covenants  with  Abraham,  have 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  made  more  than  one. 

It  is  evident  from  the  similarity  of  the  promises  which 
at  different  times  were  made  to  Abraham,  that  they  all 
belong  to  one  and  the  same  covenant.  The  promise  of  a 
numerous  posterity  was  made  and  repeated  to  him,  a<  no 
less  than  seven  different  times.*  The  promise  of  the  land 
of  Canaan  was  made  at  four  different  times,  t  The  prom- 
ise of  God  to  be.  his  portion  was  also  made  to  Abraham, 
impliedly  or  expressly,  <aifour  different  times.!  Andthe 
promise  that  in  him  all  nations  and  families  should  be 
blessed,  was  made  at  three  different  times. ||  Is  it  likely 
that  promises  so  similarly  repeated  and  intermingled 
should  be  considered  as  belonging  to  more  than  one  cove- 
nant ?  And  is  it  posible  to  form  more  than  one  cove- 
nant from  them;  without  putting  asunder  things  which 
God  hath  joined  together,  and  doing  violence  to  the 
sacred  text  ? 

These  promises  of  the  covenant  seem  to  have  been  re- 
peated at  different  times,  for  the  trial  and  confirmation 
of  the  patriarch's  faith.  Before  he  was  finally  constituted 
the  father  of  believers,  and  the  covenant  was  sealed  and 
confirmed  with  an  oath  ;  it  was  necessary  that  his  faith 
should  endure  severe  trials.  And  it  was  highly  proper, 
amidst  these  trials,  that  he  should  be  strengthened  and 
•supported  by  repeated  promises  and  encouragements.  § 

*  Gen.  xii.  2  ;  xiii.  1G  ;  xv.  5  ;  xvii.  2;  xviii.  18  ;  xxi.  13  ;  xxii.  17. 

t  Gen.  xii.  7  ;  xiii.  lo  ;  xv.  7  ;  xvii.  8. 

%  Gen.  x'u.  3  ;  xv.  1  ;  xvii.  7 ;  xxii.  17. 

H  Gen.  xii.  3  ;  xviii.  18  ;  xxii.  18. 

§  The  process  of  these  covenant  transactions,  says  Dr.  Reed,  "  exhibits 
a  most  striking  and  beautiful  climax.  In  (he  first  instance,  we  see  the  bless- 
ing confirmed  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  by  promise.  Gen.  xii.  1 — 3; 
secondly,  the  promised  blessing  is  confirmed  by  covenant,  Chap.  xv.  18; 
thirdly,  the  covenanted  blessing  is  confirmed,  by  annexing  the  token  of  dr 
cumcision  ,  Chap.  xvii.  10;  and  fourthly,  by  the  oath  of  Almighty  God, 
Chap.  xxii.  16."     Reed's  Apology,  p.  66. 


68  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

God's  covenant  transactions  with  Abraham  were  re- 
newed with  both  Isaac  and  Jacob;  and  it  is  certain  from 
these  renewals  of  them;  that  they  constitute  but  one  cov- 
enant. In  both  instances,  those  promises,  which  from 
time  to  time  had  been  made  to  Abraham,  and  which  some 
have  endeavored  to  separate  into  two  distinct  covenants, 
are  brought  together  within  the  compass  of  three  verses. 
"  The  Lord  appeared  unto  Isaac  and  said,  Go  not  down 
into  Egypt;  sojourn  in  this  land,  and  I  will  be  with  thee 
and  bless  thee  :  For  unto  thee, "and  unto  thy  seed,  I  will 
give  all  these  countries.  And  I  will  .make  thy  seed  to 
multiply  as  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  I  will  give  unto  thy 
seed  all  these  countries  ;  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Gen.  xxvi.  2 — 4.  To 
Jacob  also  God  said,  "I  am  the  Lord  God  of  Abraham, 
thy  father,  and  the  God  of  Isaac.  Tire  land  whereon 
thou  liest,  to  thee  will  I  give  it,  arid  to  thy  seed.  And 
thy  seed  shall  be  as  the  dust  of  the  earth;  and  thou  shalt 
spread  abroad  to  the  west,  and  to  the  east,  and  to  the 
north,  and  to  the  south  ;  and  ire  thee,  and  in  thy  seed, 
shall  all  the  families  of the  earth  be  blessed."  Gen.  xxviii. 
13—15. 

It  is  most  manifest,  indeed,  that  God  never  made  but 
one  covenant  with  Abraham.  And  if  he  never  made  but 
one  covenant  with  him,  then  certainly  the  promise,  that 
in  him  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be. blessed  con- 
stituted a  part  of  this  covenant.  Indeed,  this  is  expressly 
asserted  by  the  Apostle  Peter.  "Ye  are  the  children 
of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  covenant  which  God  made 
with  our  fathers,  saying,  unto  Abraham,  And  in  thy  seed 
shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Acts  iii. 
25.  This  promise  is  here  expressly  quoted,  as  belonging 
to  the  one  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham. 

It  further  appears  that  this  promise  is  included  in  the 
covenant  with  Abraham,  since  it  is  of  the  same  import 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  69 

with  some  of  the  promises  which  were  made  at  the  time 
when  circumcision  was  instituted.  God  repeatedly 
promised,  at  this  time,  that  Abraham  should  be  "the 
father  of  many  nations;"  or  tbat  many  nations  should  be 
his  children.  And  how  does  this  differ  from  the  other 
promise,  '  In  thee  shall  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  bless- 
ed V  Can  the  nations  be  blessed  in  Abraham  in  any 
other  way,  than  by  becoming  his  spiritual  children  ?  Or 
can  they  have  him  for- their  father,  and  become  his  spirit- 
ual children,  and  not  be  blessed  in  him  1 — Evidently,  the 
two  promises,  '  I  win  make  thee  a  father  of  many  na- 
tions,' and  '  Many  nations  shall  be  blessed  in  thee,'  are 
of  the  same  import ;  and  consequently,  what  has  been 
denominated,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  "gospel  promise" — * 
"the  ever  memorable  charter  of  all  the  blessings  which 
Jewish  and  Gentile  believers  enjoy  through  Christ,"  is 
included  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham. 

3.  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  from  various  representa- 
tions of  Scripture,  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  still 
exists,  as  the  covenant  of  the  church. — 1  begin  with  a 
declaration  of  the  Apostle,  which  has  been  already  quot- 
ed for  a  different  purpose.  "  This  I  say,  that  the  cov- 
enant, that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the 
law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  can- 
not disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of  none- 
effect."  Gal.  fir,  17.  It  is  evident  from  this  passage, 
not  only  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  was  not  abolished 
with  the  Levitical  law,  but  that  it  was  a  gospel  covenant, 
and  as  such  still  exists,  and  is  valid.  It  "  was  confirmed 
of  God  in  Christ."  And  not  only  so,  it  was  a  covenant 
of  promise, — that  promise,  according  to  which  all  the 
spiritual  children  of  Abraham  are  represented  in  a  fol- 
lowing verse  as  bejpg  heirs  of  the  heavenly  inheritance." 
"  If  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise," 


70 


SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM. 


In  various  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  Abraham  i? 
spoken  of  as  the  father  of  believers, -and  they  are  repre- 
sented as  his  children.  The  Apostle  Paul  accounts  for 
this,  by  referring  us  directly  to  the  covenant  WiJh -Abra- 
ham,— of  which  circumcision  was  the  seal  or  token. 
"He  (Abraham)  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal 
of  tlie  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being 
uncircumcised,  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them 
that  believe'  though  they  be  not  circumcised."  Rom.  iv. 
11.  In  other  words,  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision, 
and  the  covenant  of  which  this  was  a  part,  that  he  might 
be  the  father  of  believers,  and  that  'they  might  be  his  spi- 
ritual children. 

•  In  a  following  verse,  the  Apostle  justifies  himself  in 
speaking  of  Abraham,  as  the  father  of  believers,  and  of 
them  as  his  seed,  by  quoting  a  part  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham,  recorded  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Gen- 
esis. "  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace, 
to  the  end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed ;  not 
to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which  is 
of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  ivho  is  the  father  of  us  all;  as 
it  is  written,  T  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations." 

From  these  representations  it  is  evident,  that  the  pe- 
culiar relation  between  believers  and  Abraham  is  founded 
on  the  covenant  with  Abraham  -T  and  so  long  as  this  rela- 
tion exists — so  long  as  Abraham  continues  to  be  the  father 
of  believers,  and  they  are  his  children — so  long  this  cov- 
enant must  remain  in  force. 

In  the  passage  above  quoted  from  Rom.  iv.  11,  circum- 
cision is  called  "  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith."  It 
made  sure  to  all  who  received  it,  that  faith  like  that  of 
Abraham,  and  like  that  required  in  the  covenant  with 
Abraham,  ivas  imputed  for  rightcous/tps,  and  stood  con- 
nected with  justification*  It  follows,  therefore,  that 
*    "  It  (circumcision)  seals  the  truth  of  the  gospel,  viz,  that  there   is 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  •   71 

true  faith  was  required,  and  justification  promised,  in  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  ;  and  consequently  that  this  was 
a  gospel  covenant,  comprising  the  covenant  of  grace. 

When  the  tongue  of  Z.acharias  was  loosed,  on  the  birth 
of  his  son,  he  "  prophesied  saying,  Blessed  be  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel,  for  he  hath  visited  and  redeemed  his  peo- 
ple   to  perform  the  mercy  promised  to  our  fathers, 

and  to  remember  his.  holy  covenant,  the  oath  which  lie 
sware  to  our  father  AbrahaiiS  <Scc.  Luke  i.  6T — 75. 
Zacharias  here  speaks,  like  the  more  ancient  prophets, 
of  events  future,  as  though  they  .were  already  past.  "  He 
hath  visited  and  redeemed  his  people,"  i.  ev  he  wHl  visit 
and  redeem  them.  And  it  is  evident  from  this  whole 
passage,  that  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  so  far  from  be- 
ing abolished,  must  continue  in  unabated  force,  till  God 
has  completed  the  redemption  of  his  people. 

The  existence  of  this  covenant  under  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation is  clearly  established  by  the  Apostle  Peter.  • 
Addressing  the  people  soon  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  he 
says,  "  Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the 
covenant  which  God  made  with  our  fathers  saying  unto 
Abraham,  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the 
earth  be  blessed."  Acts  iii.  25.  The  old  dispensation 
had  now  ceased,  and  the  new  one  had  been  ushered  in. 
Yet  those  whom  the  Apostle  addressed  are  represented  as 
still  the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  covenant 
wi^h  Abraham. 

The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  says,  "  When 
God  made  premise  to  Abraham,  because  he  could  swear 
by  no  greater,  he  sware  by  himself,  saying,  Surely  bless- 
ing, I  will  bless-  thee,  and   multiplying,    I    will  Vnultiplv 

thee that   by   two   immutable  things,  in  which  it 

was  impossible  for  God  to  lie,  we  might  have  strong  con- 
righteousness  in  the  faith  of  Abraham,  or  that  all  who  have  Abraham's  faith 
have  righteousness."    Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  p.  359. 


72  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

solation,  who  have  fled  for  refuge,  to  lay  hold  upon  the, 
hope  set  before  us."  Heb.  vi.  13 — 18.  In  this  passage, 
we  have  an  express  reference  to  a  promise  of  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham,  as'recorded  in  the  seventeenth  chap- 
ter of  Genesis ;  and  it  is  evident  from  "the  whole  sentence, 
that  the  promises  of  this  covenant,  being  afterwards  con- 
firmed by  an  oath,  are  now  the  covenant  in  which  Chris- 
tians stand.  We  are  told  that  it  was  confirmed  by  an 
oath,  that  "  we" — professing  Christians — "  might  have 
strong  consolation."  But  how  should  the  confirmation  of 
this  covenant  by  an  oath  .afford  strong  consolation  to  pro- 
fessing Christians,  unless  this  is  in'  fact  the  covenant  of 
the  church  now,  as  it  was  of  the  church  under  the  former 
dispensation  1 

I  have  now  proved  the  continued  existence  of  the  cov- 
enant with  Abraham,  by  inference — from  its  having  never 
been  abolished — from  the  nature  of  the  covenant  itself — 
and  from  the  concurrent  testimony  of  the  word  of  God. 
I  only  add, 

4.  That  it  is  expressly  and  frequently  declared  to  be 
an  everlasting  covenant.  "  I  will  establish  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  for  an 
everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee."  Gen.  xvii.  7.  This  covenant  is  also 
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  as  to  exist  forever. 
"  He  hath  holpen  his  servant  Israel,  in  remembrance  of 
his  mercy,  as  he  spake  to  our  fathers,  to  Abraham,  Q,nd»to 
his  seed  forever.  Luke  i.  55.  I  know  it  will  be  objected, 
that  the  terms  everlasting  and  forever  are  often  used  in 
Scripture  to  express  a  limited  duration.  But  to  this  it 
may  be  replied,  that  the  duration  expressed  by  these  terms 
is  never  limited  but  by  the  nature  of  the  subjects  to  which 
they  are  applied  ;  and  that  to  suppose  it  limited  by  the 
nature  of  the  subject  under  consideration  is  to  take  for 
granted  the  very  point  in  dispute.     It  has  been  shown 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  •  78 

that  Ae  covenant  with  Abraham  comprises  the  covenant 
of  grace.  '  So*  long,  therefore,  as  the  redeemed  subjects  of 
grace  continue  in  glory,  the  covenant  of  Abraham  will 
not  be  forgotten.  It  will  doubjless  be  stripped  of  its  ex- 
ternal appendages,  when  these  shall  be  no  longer  needful ; 
but  in  its  more  spiritual  essential  parts,  it  will  be  literally 
everlasting. 

Section  III. 

Tlie  Relation  of  the  Children  of  Covenanting  Parents  to  the  Church. 

Under  the  Christian  dispensation,  as  under  the  Jewish, 
the  infant  children  of  covenanting  parents  sustain  a  pecu- 
liar relation  to  the  church.  What  this  relation  is,  or 
whether  it  may  with  propriety  be  denominated  member- 
ship, I  do  not  now  inquire.  This  branch  of  the  subject 
will  be.  considered  in  another  pkce.  But  that  there  sub- 
sists an  intimate  and  peculiar  relationship  between  such 
children  and  the  church,  I  have  no  doubt. 

This  is  an  incontestable  inference  from  what  has  been 
already  established.  No  one  doubts  that  children  stood 
in  a  very  near  relation  to  the  church  of  Israel  ;  but  if  the 
church, -under  both  dispensations,  has  been  the  same, 
then  this  relation  continues.  It  is  indubitable,  that  chil- 
dren were  formerly  interested  in  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham. Its  requirements  respected  them.  Its  promises 
ieached  them.  Abraham  must  circumcise  his  children, 
as  well  as  himself.  He  must  "command  his  children 
and  his  household  after  him,"  as  well  as  pursue  for  him- 
self the  path  of  duty.  And  on  the  other  hand,  God  prom- 
ised to  be  their  God,  as  well  as  his.  But  this  covenant  is 
still  the  covenant  of  the  church  ;  and  whatever  connexion 
it  established  formerly  between  the  child  and  the  church,  • 
it  establishes  now.  The  Christian  parent,  like  the  Jew- 
ish, is  bound  in  covenant  to  train  up  his  children  for  God. 


74  •  SUBJECTS    OP     BAPTISM. 

And  if  the  Jew  could  plead  a  promise  in  favor  of  Ms  off- 
spring, the  Christian  can  do  the  same  :  "  The  promise  is 
to  you  and  to  your  children."     Acts  ii.  39. 

But  the  relation  of  children  to  the  church  under  the 
new  dispensation  does  not  stand  on  the  mere  ground  of 
inference.  It  is  recognized  in  many  parts  of  the  sacred 
volume. — The  ancient  prophets,  when  looking  forward  to 
the  times  of  the  gospel,  assume  the  continued  relation  of 
children  to  the  church.  Thus  Jeremiah,  speaking  with 
an  ultimate  reference  to  the  restoration  of  Israel  in  the 
latter  days,  says,  "  Their  children  shall  be  as  aforetime, 
and  their  congregation  (or  church)  shall  be  established 
before  me."  Chap.  xxx.  20.  And  Isaiah,  predicting  the 
future  blessedness  of  God's  people,  says,  "  They  are  the 
seed  of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord,  and  their  offspring  with 
them."     Chap.  Ixv.  23. 

Some  of  the  friends  of  our  Saviour,  at  a  certain  time, 
"  brought  unto  him  infants,  that  he  would  touch  them. 
And  when  his  disciples  saw  it,  they  rebuked  them.  But 
Jesus  said,  suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
forbid  them  not ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God." 
Luke  xviii.  15,  16.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  these  were 
literally  little  children.  They  are  expressly  called  (Soeqr/) 
infants ;.  they  were  brought  to  Christ  in  their  parents' 
arms ;  and  were  taken  up  in  his  arms  and  blessed.  Com- 
pare Matt.  xix.  13  and  Mark  x.  16..  But  "  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God  ;"  or  more  properly,  to  such  belong  the 
privileges  of  this  kingdom. 

I  know  it  is  said  that  the  phrase  "  of  such"  imports  not 

"  such  in  age  and  size,  but  such  in  the  moral  temper  of 

heart;    in  humility,  and  docility  of  disposition."*     But 

this  interpretation  cannot  be   admitted.     It  stamps  ab- 

"  surdity  on  the  reasoning  of  the  Saviour.     Why  should  he 

*  Judson's  Sermon,  p.  30. 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  4i> 

be  displeased  with  his  disciples  for  forbidding  infants  in 
years  to  be  brought  to  him,  because  a  humble  disposition 
was  necessary  in  grown  persons,  to  fit  them  for  his  king- 
dom ?  Or,  as  Storr  and  Flatt  express  it,  "  the  proposi- 
tion, the  kingdom  of  heaven  belongs  to  humble  adults, 
would  be  no  reason  why  children  should  not  be  prevent- 
ed from  coming  to  Jesus."* 

On  another  occasion,  our  Saviour,  having  taken  a  little 
child  in  his  arms,  said,  "  Whosoever  shall  receive  one  of 
such  children  in  my  name,  receiveth  me."  Mark  ix.  87. 
The  phrase,  "  in  my  name,"  as  interpreted  by  our  Lord 
himself  in  a.  following  verse,  imports  a  belonging  to 
Christ,  or  sustaining  some  peculiar  relation  to  him. 
"  Whosoever  shall  give  you  a  cup -of  water  to  drink  in  my 
name,  because  ye  belong  to  Christ,  verily  I  say  unto  you, 
he  shall  not  lose  his  reward."  From  these  passages,  tak- 
en together,  it  is  certain  that  our  Saviour  regarded  the 
children  of  his  friends,  who  were  brought  to  him  for  his 
blessing,  as  in  some  sense  belonging  to  him,  and  entitled 
to  the  privileges  of  his  kingdom. 

Paul  wrote  to  his  Corinthian  brethren  as  follows  : — 
11  The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and 
the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband  ;  else 
were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  («*/<«) 
holy."  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  It  is  obvious  to  remark  on  this 
passage,,  that  if  the  children  are  holy  when  only  one  pa- 
rent is  a  believer,  they  certainly  must  be  when  both  are 
believers.  Hence  all  the  children  of  believing  parent's, 
not  only  at  Corinth,  but  throughout  the  earth,  are  here 
virtually  declared,  on  divine  authority,  to  be  holy.  But 
in  what  sense !     I   am  not  aware  that  the  word  holy  is 

•  *  Dr.  Gale  admits  that  the  phrase,  "  of  such"  refers  to  infants  in  years. 
Reflections  on  Wall,  p.  421. — Augustine  interprets  the  passage  above  con- 
sidered as  having  reference  to  the  baptism  of  children.  See  Wall's  Histo- 
ry, Chap*  15.       . 


76  SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM. 

used  in  more  than  two  senses  in  the  sacred  writings.  It 
uniformly  expresses  either  an  internal  or  external,  a  real 
or  relative  holiness.  That  the  children  of  believers  are 
really,  internally  holy,  is  not  pretended.  The  holiness 
ascribed  to  them  is,  therefore,  a  visible  or  relative  holi- 
ness. They  are  called  holy,  because  of  their  consecra- 
tion to  God  ;  and  because  of  the  relation  which  they  sus- 
tain to  his  people.* 

But  it  is  objected,  that.the'same  holiness  which  belongs 
to  the  child  is  also  ascribed  to  the  unbelieving  parent : 
He  (iiytacncu)  "  is  sanctified"  by  the  believer. — A  correct 
interpretation  of  the  passage  will  be  a  sufficient  ansvver 
to  this  objection.  The  sanctification  of  which  the  unbe- 
lieving parent  is  the  subject,  and  the  holiness  attributed 
to  the  children,  are  both  relative.  They  pertain  to  a  re- 
lation, and  not  to  the  moral  characters  of  the  individuals. 
The  word  sanctify  is  sometimes  used  to  express  a  rela- 
tion to  a  religious  society.  So  in  the  passage  before  us  : 
"  The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,"  &c. 
That  is,  the  unbelieving  husband,  because  of  his  believ- 
ing wife,  is  brought  into  a  near,  peculiar,  and  in  some 
sense  sacred  relation  to  the  community  of  Christians  ;  on 
account  of  which  his  children  are  not  regarded  as  un- 
clean or  pagan,  but  are  holy,  consecrated  to  God,  and 
connected  with  the  society  of  his  people. 

Some  of  our  Baptist  brethren  have  insisted,  that  the 
Apostle,  in  this  passage,  is  proving  to  the  Corinthians, 
from  the  acknowledged  fact  that  their  children  were  not 
unclean  but  holy,  that  the  co-habitation  of  the  believer 
with  the  unbeliever  was  lawful  marriage.  But  in  respect 
to  what  law  had  the  legitimacy  of  their  marriage  been 

*  "  They  are  considered  as  members  of  the  Christian  church*"  Schleus— 
ner. 

"  They  are  to  be  considered  as  belonging  to  the  Christian  cominunity.'* 
Wahl. 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  7T 

called  in  question  1  Not,  surely,  in  respect  to  the  laws 
of  Corinth.  The  believer  never  supposed  he  violated 
these  laws,  by  continuing  his  connexion  with  the  unbe- 
liever. The  question  (if  there  was  any)^  must  have  re- 
spected the  laws  of  God.  The  Corinthians  knew  that 
God's  ancient  people  were  forbidden,  not  only  to  be  join- 
ed with  strangers,  but  to  continue  such  connexions  after 
they  were  formed.  Ezra  x.  3.  They  knew  also  that  the 
offspring  of  these  prohibited  connexions  had  been  consid- 
ered unclean,  out  of  covenant,  and  as  not  belonging  to 
"  the  holy  seed."  Ezra  ix.  2.  It  is  not  unlikely,  there- 
fore, that  the  Corinthian  believers,  who  were  married  to 
unbelievers,  called  in  question  the  legality  of  continuing 
such  connexions;  and  that  the  Apostle,  fortheir  satisfac- 
tion, referred  them  to  the  well  known  fact,  that  their 
children  had  not  been  rejected  as  unclean,  and  out  of 
covenant,  but  had  "been  publicly  recognized  as  holy. 

The  Epistles  of  Paul  are  in  most  instances  addressed 
to  particular  churches ;  as  the  church  at  Rome,  the 
church  at  Corinth,  the  churches  in  Galatia,  &c.  But  we 
find,  on  examination,  that  several  of  these  Epistles  con- 
tain directions  for  children.  "  Chifdren  obey. your  pa- 
rents in -the  Lord,  for  this  is  right.  Honor  thy  father 
and  mother,  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee,  and  thou  may- 
est  live  long  on  the  earth."  See  Eph.  vi.  1,  and*Col.  iii. 
20.  Is  it  not  evidentfrom  these  passages,  that  the  Apos- 
tle regarded  the  children  of  church  members  as  in  some 
way  connected  with  the  churches,  or  as  sustaining  a  very 
near  and  peculiar  relation  to  them  1  Else,  why  should 
he  so  particularly  address  himself  to  children,  in  Epistles 
directed  expressly  to  the  churches  ? 

At  the  commencement  of  the  new  dispensation,  the 
followers  of  Christ  were  a  body  by  themselves,  and  their 
property  was  vested  in  a  common  stock.  They  "  that 
believed,"  we  are  told,  "  were  together,  and  had  all  things 


78  SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM. 

common,  and  sold  their  possessions  and  goods,  and  parted 
to  all  men,  as  every  man  had  need."  Acts  ii.  44.  But 
where  were  their  children  at  this  time  ?  Were  riot  they 
associated  with  their  parents?  Would  the  Christian  pa- 
rent vest  all  his  property  in  the  common  stock,  and  cast 
his  infant  children  upon  the  world  ?  It  is  beyond  all 
controversy  that  the  children. of  Christians  in  those  days 
were  associated  with  their  parents,  and  sustained  a  near 
and  peculiar  relation  to  the  church  of  Christ. 

Another  fact  which  deserves  notice  in  this  connexion 
is,  that  the  Jewish  converts  continued,  for  many  years, 
to  circumcise  their  children,. and  to  do  it  under  the  imme- 
diate charge  and  direction  of  the  Apostles.  We  are  told 
that  the  great  church  at  Jerusalem,  which  consisted  of 
"  many  thousands,"  and  was  under  the  pastoral  care  of 
the  Apostle  James,  were  not  a  little  displeased  when  they 
heard  of  Paul,  that  he  taught  the  Jews  "  not  to  circum- 
cise their  children."  Acts  xxi.  20.  Now  what  does  this 
fact  of  circumcision  prove  ?  Undoubtedly,  that  the  chil- 
dren of  believing  parents  were  at  that  time  regarded  as 
holding  some  connexion  with  the  church  of  Christ.  Had 
the  covenant  with  Abraham  been  abolished,  and  had  it 
been  the  intention  of  the  Apostles  to  separate  in  future 
between  children  and  the  church,  they  never  would  have 
countenanced,  or  so  much  as  tolerated,  the  circumcision 
of  children.  They  would  as  soon  have  tolerated  the 
Gentiles  in  the  worship  of  their  idols. 

From  the  Apostles'  times  to  the  present,  the  cqnnexr 
ion  of  children  with  the  church  has  been 'sanctioned  by 
the  general  voice  of  professing  Christians.  Such  was 
clearly  the  understanding  in  the  primitive  church,  as -all 
who  are  acquainted  with  the  writings  and  doings  of  the 
early  fathers  very  well  know.  Thus,  the  Council  of  Eli- 
beris,  which  assembled  about  two  hundred  years  after  the 
Apostles,  speaks  of  infants  being  carried  over  from  the 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  79 

Catholic  church  to  heresy,  before  the  fault  could  be  their 
■own.*  And  at  a  much  earlier  period,  Hennas  saw  cer- 
tain stones  taken  out  of  the  deep-,  and  fitted  into  the 
building,  the  church,  and  was  told  by  an  angel  that  these 
represented  members  in  the  first  or  infant  age.t 

Indeed,  the  peculiar  relation  of  children  to  the  church 
(wiih  some  diversity  of  explanation  and  practice)  has 
been  constantly  maintained,  by  Greeks,  Catholics,  Epis- 
copalians, and  by  most  denominations  of  Protestant  Dis- 
senters, even  to  our  own  times. 

Section  IV. 

The  Substitution  of  Baptism  in  the  place  of  Circumcision. 

That  baptism  is  now  substituted  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision is  an  incontestable  inference  from  the  fact, 
that  the  church,  under  both  dispensations,  has  been  the 
same.  Baptism  is  now,  what  circumcision  was  in  ancient 
times,  an  instituted  pre-requisite  to  a  regular  standing  in 
the  visible  church..  If,  therefore,  the  church  has  been,, 
under  both  dispensations,  the  same,  the  conclusion  can- 
not be  resisted  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision. 

The  same  conclusion  results  also  from  the  fact,  that 
the  covenant  with  Abraham  is  still  the  covenant  of  the 
church.  Of  this  covenant,  circumcision  was  formerly  the 
token.  "  It  (circumcision)  shall  be  a  token  of  the  cove- 
nant betwixt  me  ana"  thee."  Gen.  xvii.  11.  But  circum- 
cision lias  been  abolished,  and  baptism,  an  ordinance  of 
the  same  church,  and  of  course,  under  the  same  cov- 
enant, has  been  instituted.  How  plain,  therefore,  that 
baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  as  the  visi- 
ble token  of  the  covenant  of  the  church  ? 

*  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Part  i.  Chap.  7. 
t  Similitude  be.  Chap.  15. 


80  SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM, 

This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  consideration  that 
circumcision  and  baptism  are  of  precisely  the  same  import. 
Circumcision,  as  a  token  of  the  covenant,  was  both  a 
sign  and  a  seal.  .  As  a  sign,  it  represented  the  circumci- 
sion of  the  heart,  or  regeneration.  "  Circumcision  is  of 
the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter."  Rom.  ii. 
29.  As  a  seal,  circumcision  confirmed  "the  righteous- 
ness of  faith,"  or  the  covenant  of  grace.  Rom.  iv.  11. 
Such  was  the  import  of  circumcision.  And  is  not  that 
of  baptism  precisely  similar  ?  This,  too,  is  both  a  sign 
and  a  seal.  As  a  sign,  it  is  an  emblem  of  the  washing 
of  regeneration,  or  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It 
therefore  signifies  the  same  as  circumcision.  Does  it  not 
also  seal  the  same  1  Does  it  not  assure  those  who  receive 
it  that,  if  their  characters  arc  conformed  to  its  sacred 
import,  their  faith  shall  be  imputed  to  them  for  righteous- 
ness, and  they  be  interested  in  all  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant  of  grace.? — But  if,  when  the  ancient  token  of 
the  covenant  was  abolished,  an  ordinance  was  established 
in  the  same  church,  a.nd  appended  to  the  same  covenant, 
of  precisely  similar  import;  how  is  it  possible  to  resist 
the  conclusion,  that  this  latter  is  substituted  for  the  for- 
mer 1* 

The  Scriptures  clearly  countenance  the  idea,  that  bap- 
tism is  substituted  in  the  place  of  circumcision.  Writing 
to  the  Philipjpians,  the  Apostle  says,  "  Beware  of  the  con- 
cision," (those  persons  who  lay  an  exorbitant  stress  on 
the  rite  of  circumcision)  "for  z^e"— we  who  have  been 
baptized — "  are  the  circumcision,  whteh  worship  God  in 
the  spirit."  Phil.  iii.  2,  3.  And  to  the  Colossians  he 
says,  "  Ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made 
without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ,   buried  with  him  in 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  E. 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  81 

baptism."    Col.  ii.  11,  12.     In  other  words,  '  Ye  are  cir- 
cumcised, having  been  baptized.' 

If  it  be  objected,  that  spiritual  circumcision  and  spir* 
itual  baptism  are  here  intended,  I  admit  that  they  are ; 
and  the  Apostle  represents  them  to  be  the  same.  And  if 
these  two  ordinances  are  spiritually  the  same,  and  if  the 
one  was.  instituted  in  the  church  on  the  removal  of  the 
other,  is  it  not  plain  that  the  one  is  substituted  for  the 
other? 

The  primitive  Christian  fathers  considered  b'aptism  as 
having  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision. 

Justin  Martyr  says,  "  We  have  not  received  this  carnal 
circumcision,  but  the  spiritual  circumcision ;  and  we 
have  received  it  by  baptism.  It  is  allowed  to  all  persons 
•to  receive  it  in  the  same  way."* 

In  the  Questions  to  the  Orthodox,  attributed  to  Justin, 
we  have  the  following  Question  and  Answer  :  "  If  cir- 
cumcision be  a  good  thing,  why  do  not  we  use  it  as  well 
as  the  Jews?"  Ans.  "  We  are  circumcised  by  baptism 
with  Christ's  circumcision. "t 

The  question  of  Fidus  to  Cyprian  and  the  Council  of 
Carthage,  whether  it  be  lawful  to  baptize  an  infant  sooner 
than  the  eighth  day,  necessarily  supposes  it  to  have  been 
an  established  opinion  that  baptism  had  come  in  the  place 
of  circumcision.  Indeed,  Cyprian  says  expressly,  that. 
"  Christ  has  given  us  baptism,  the  spiritual  circumcis* 
ion."* 

Basil  says,  "  A -Jew  does  not  delay  circumcision,  bet- 
cause  of  the  threatening,  that  every  soul  that  is  not  cir- 
cumcised, the  eighth  day  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people  ; 
and  dost  thou  put  off  the  circumcision  made  without 
hands,  which  is  performed  in  baptism,  when  thou  hearest 

*  Wall's  Jlist.  of  In.  Bap.  Vol.  i.  Chapters  ii.  vi.  yi, 
f  Parti.  Chap, 2, 


82  SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM. 

the  Lord  himself  say,  except  one  be  born  of  water  and  the 
Spirit  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ?"* 

•Ambrose  clearly  speaks  of  baptism  as  having  come  in 
the  place  of  circumcision.* 

Augustine   says,   "  W.e   may    make   an   estimate   how, 
much  baptism  avails  infants,  by  the  circumcision  which 
God's  people  formerly  received.* 

Chrysostom  says,  <c  Our  communion,  I  mean  the  grace  of 
baptism,  gives  cure  without  pain,  and  procures  to  us  a 
thousand  benefits.  And  it  has  no  determinate  time,  as 
the  ancient  circumcision  had  ;  but  one  in  the  very  begin- 
ning of  his  age,  or  one  tlrat  is  in  the  middle  of  it,  or  one 
that  is  in  his  old  age,  may  receive  this  circumcision  made 
without  hands."* 

•   To  the  sentiment  inculcated  in  this  Section  there  have*, 
been  objections,  which  it  may  be  proper  briefly  to  con- 
sider. 

1.  It  is  said  that  the  substitution  of  baptism  in  place  of 
circumcision  "was  not  urged,  as  might  have  been  expect- 
ed, in  reply  to  those  Judaizing  teachers,  who  were  for  en- 
forcing circumcision  on  the  Gentile  converts.  Acts  xv. 
But  these  teachers  wished  to  enforce  on  the  Gentiles,  not 
only  circumcision,  but  the  whole  ritual  laic ;  and  to  en- 
force it  all  as  a  condition  of  salvation,.  "'  Ye  must  be  cir- 
cumcised, and  keep  the  law  of  Moses,  or  ye  cannot  be 
saved."  It  would,  then,  not  have  satisfied  them  in  the 
least,  to  have  urged  that  baptism  had  been  substituted  for 
Gircumcision.  The  grand  difficulty  had  still  remained, 
'  Ye  must  keep  the  law,  or  ye  cannot  be  saved.' — It  ap- 
pears that,   as  far  as  the   proposed  answer  would  have 

*  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Vol.  i.  Chapters  xii-^-xv.     It  will  be  observed  • 
that  several  of  the  fathers  speak  of  baptism  (in- the  language  of  the  Apostle, 
Col.  ii.  11,  12.)  as  "  the  circumcision  made  without  hands."     It  is  evident 
from  this,  that  they  understood  the  Apostle,  in  the  passage  referred  to,  as- 
teaching  the  substitution  of  baptism  in  place  of  circumcision. 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM,  83 

availed  with  these  teachers,  it  was  virtually  given.  For 
it  was  authoritatively  determined  in  Apostolic  councilj  that 
.the  Gentile  brethren — those  who  had  been  baptized — 
had  no  need  to  be  circumcised". 

2.  It  is  objected  that  the  Jewish  believers  knew  noth- 
ing of  the  substitution  of  baptism  in  place  of  circumcis- 
ion, as  they  continued,  under  the  direction  of  the  Apos- 
tles, to  circumcise  their  children.  But  why  did  the  Apos- 
tles^  or  any  of  them,  permit  the  Jewish  converts  to  cir- 
cumcise their  children  ?  Not,  surely,  because  they  re- 
garded circumcision  as  still  binding.  They  acted  in  this 
case,#as  in  many  others,  from  a  commendable  regard  in 
things  indifferent,  to  the  long  established  customs  and  pre- 
judices of  the  Jews.  As  the  import  of  the  two  ordinances 
was.  the  same,  and  the  relation  of  children  to  the  church 
was  intended  to  be  continued,  they  saw,  no  inconsistency 
in  yielding,  for  a  time,  to  this  feeling  of  the  Jewish  con- 
verts. But  this  same  feeling  of  regard,  which  led  the 
Apostles  to  tolerate  .circumcision,  would  prompt  them  not 
to  enlarge  on  the  substitution  of  baptism  in  its  place. 

8.  It  is  urged  that  baptism  cannot  have  come' in  the 
place  of  circumcision,  since  the  latter  was  applied  to  none 
but  males.  But  why  was  circumcision  applied  to  none 
but  males  1t  Not  because  of  anything  in  its  internal  im- 
port, which  rendered  it  improper  that  it  should  be  ad- 
ministered to  females  ;  for  these  were  included  in  the 
covenant  with  Abraham,  and  were  really  of  the  circum- 
cision, as  much  as  the  males.*  The  reason  lay  in  the 
peculiar  nature  of  the  external  ceremony.  God,  in  his 
wisdom,  instituted  a  token  of  his  covenant,  under  the  for- 
mer dispensation,  which  could   be  applied  to  but  one  of 

*  No  uncircumcised  person  was  allowed  to  partake  of  the  Passover 
Yet  females  partook  of  it  as.  well  as  males  ;  (See  Luke  ii.  41.)  which  shows 
thai  though  they  bore  not  the  external  mark,  they  were  regarded  as  of  the 
circumcisioiu 


84  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

the  sexes.  In  the  exercise  of  the  same  wisdom,  he  has 
appointed  a  token  under  the  present  dispensation,  which 
can  be  applied  to  both.  And  to  use  the  language  of  Mr.  • 
Flavel :  "  Cannot  baptism  stand  in  the  place  of  circumcis- 
ion, because  it  answers  all  its'ends,  with  an  advantage  V 
— We  know  that,  under  the  former  dispensation,  a 
distinction  obtained  between  the  sexes  in  regard  to  most 
divine  institutions.  But  this  distinction  is  now  in  gen- 
eral abolished ;  so  that  under  the  Gospel,  "  there  is 
neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  neither  bond  nor  free,  neither 
male  nor  female."  Both  sexes  participate  equally  in  Christ, 
and  have  equal  access  to  the  ordinances  of  his  kingdom. 

4.  It  is  objected  again,  that  if  baptism  has  come  in 
the  place  of  circumcision,  then  servants  as  well  as  children 
must  be  baptized.  Abraham  was  commanded  to  circum- 
cise him  that  was  "  bought  with- money  of  any  stranger, 
which  was  not  of  his  seed." — To  this  it  may  be  replied, 
that  certain  practices  were  tolerated  under  .the  former 
dispensation,  which  are  at  present  disallowed.  Such 
were  polygamy,  slavery,  &c.  Unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  the  New  Testament  authorizes  the  purchase  and 
holding  of  slaves,  and  of  consequence  the  slave  trade,  the 
case  so  far  as  it  is  objectionable,  can  no  more  lawfully 
occur.* 

5.  It  is  farther  .objected  that,  on  the  ground  we  have 
taken,  baptism  cannot  be  lawfully  administered  to  chil- 
dren sooner  or  later  than  the  eighth  day.  "  He  that  is 
eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised  among  you." — The 
reason  why  circumcision  was  enjoined  on  the  eighth  day 

*  It  is  believed  that  children,  who  are  taken  permanently  into  the  fami- 
lies and  under  the  care  and  govemmei.t  of  professing  Christians,  may  with 
propriety  be  baptized.  Christians  may  consistently  be  sponsors  for  such 
children.  They  may  enter  into  covenant  respecting  them  that  they  will 
train  them  up  for  God,  and  may  seal  their  engagements  in  the  water  of 
baptism. 


SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  85 

is  clearly  expressed  in  the  law  of  Moses.  "  If  a  woman 
have  borne  a  man  child,  she  shall  be  unclean  seven  days, 
and  on  the  eighth  day  he  shall  be  circumcised."  Lev.  xii. 
2,  3.  On  account  of  the  mother's  uncleanness,  her  child 
could  not  lie  at  her  breast,  or  so  much  as  touch  her,  until 
after  seven  days,  without  contracting  ceremonial  pollution. 
And  on  the  eighth  day  it  must  be  circumcised.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  covenant  was  then  virtually  this,  *  Let  the 
child  be  circumcised  as  soon  as  possible.'  And. such  is 
still  its  language  in  respect  to  baptism. 

The  principles  which  have  been  here  established  fur- 
nish a  reply  to  an  objection  which  is  sometimes  urged 
against  the  baptism  of  children.  '  If  baptism  signifies  re- 
generation, then  why  should  it  be  applied. to  children,  or 
to  any  but  hopefully  regenerated  persons  V  But  circum- 
cision signified  regeneration  as  much  as  baptism  ;  and 
yet  this  was  expressly  commanded  to  be  applied  to  chil- 
dren. The  truth  is,  that  while  both  circumcision  and 
baptism  shadow  forth  regeneration,  and  import  its  neces- 
sity, they  do  not  of  themselves  certify  that  all  those  to 
whom  they  are  applied  are  regenerated  persons.  Baptism 
was  administered  by  Philip  to  Simon  the  sorcerer ;  but 
this  did  not  prove  him  to  be  regenerated.  And  neither 
does  circumcision  or  baptism,  when  applied  to  infants, 
indicate  that  they  are,  at  the  time,  the  subjects  of  a  re- 
generating influence.   * 

Section  V. 

The  Infant  Children  of  believing,  covenanting  parents  are  to  be  baptized. 

This  is  the  great  point  in  controversy,  in  relation  to 
the  subjects  of  baptism.  And  it  is  a  proposition,  the  truth 
of  which  may  be  inferred  from  what  has  been  established 
iu  each  of  the  preceding  Sections. 


86 


SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM. 


If  the  Christian  church  is  the  same  with  the  church  of 
Israel,  in  which  children  were  visibly  dedicated  to  God  ; 
then  doubtless  they  are  to  be  dedicated  still 

If  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  the  token  of  which  be. 
longed  to  the  offspring  of  those  interested  in  it,  is  still  the 
covenant  of  the  visible  church ;  then  the  members  of  this 
church  are  still  under  obligations  to  apply  the  token  to 
their  infant  children. 

If  the  children  of  covenanting  parents  sustain  a  rela- 
tion to  the  visible  church,  as  they  did  to  the  church  of 
Israel ;  then  they  must  be  proper  subjects  of  that  rite  by 
which  this  relation  is  established. 

And  if  baptism  is  substituted  in  place  of  circumcision 
which  was  applied,  by  a  divine  command,  to  the  seed  of 
covenanting  parents  ;  then  the  same  divine  command  now 
binds  the  covenanting  parent  to  apply  baptismal  water  to 
his  infant  offspring. 

Here  is  the  foundation  of  infant  baptism  ; — a  founda- 
tion as  sure  as  the  word  of  God, — and  on  which  the  ordi- 
nance, I  doubt  not,  will  rest,  till  the  end  of  time. 

What  remains  is  to' introduce  some  collateral  evidence 
in  support  of  the  proposition,  that  the  children  of  believ- 
ing covenanting  parents  are  to  be  baptized.     And, 

1.  The  sentiment  contained  in  this  proposition,  is  rea- 
sonable in  itself,  and  in  accordance  with  our  best  affec- 
tions. In  the. children  of  those  v^  love,  we  all  naturally 
feel  a  peculiar  interest.  A  good  Prince  would  wish  and 
provide,  that  the  children  of  his  beloved  and  faithful 
friends  should  be  placed  in  a  near  relation  to  himself. 
And  shall  it  be  supposed  that  the  Prince  of  life  will  not 
regard  with  tokens  of  peculiar  favor  the  children  of  his 
covenant  people  1  Will  he  not  grant  them  some  special 
pledge  of  love  ?  Will  he  take  his  people  under  the  shad- 
ow of  his  wings,  and  make  no  special  provision  for  their 
offspring.     In  his  care  of  the  sheep,*  will  he  forget  the 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM.  CT 

• 

Jambs  of  his  flock  ? — And  how  reasonable  that  the  pious 
parent,  who  loves  his  children  -and  is  chiefly  concerned 
for  their  spiritual  welfare,  should  wish  to  place  them  un- 
der the  particular  care  and  protection  of  Jehovah ; — 
should  wish  publicly  to  dedicate  and  devote  them  to  God, 
and  bind  himself  by  solemn  vows  to  train  them  up  for 
him  ?* 

2.  The  analogy  of  God's  covenant  dealings  in  past  ages 
is  in  favor  of  the  doGtrine  of  infant  baptism.  In  all  the 
covenants  which  God  has  hitherto  made  with  men,  chil- 
dren have  been  connected  with  their  parents.  Thus  it 
was  in  the  covenant  with  Adam ;  and  in  the  covenant 
with  Noah  ;  and  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham  ;  and  in 
the  covenant'with  David.  God  dealt  favorably  with  .the 
children  of  Lot  for  their  father's  sake  ;  and  he  declares 
himself  to  be  a  God,  keeping  covenant  with  those  that 
love  him  "  to  a  thousand  generations."  How  unlikely 
then,  let  the  covenant  of  the  Christian  church  be  what  it 
may,  that  God  has  swerved  from  the  invariable  economy 
of  his-covenant  dealings  in  past  age3,  and  cut  off  children 
under  the  gospel  from  any  kind  of  connexion  with  their 
covenanting  parents. 

3.  If  infant  baptism  is  not  according  to  Scripture, 
then  the  privileges  of  believers  under  the  present  dispen- 
sation are  less  than  tkey  were  formerly  under  the  law.  It 
is  a  precious  privilege  to  the  enlightened  Christian  parent, 
to  bring  his  beloved  children  to  Christ;  publicly  to  re- 
sign them  into  his  hands  ;  promise  to  educate  them  ac- 
cording to  his  precepts ;  and  to  see  affixed  to  them  the 
token  of  his  holy  covenant.  It  is  a  privilege  "  to  do  this 
in  the  temple  of  God,  where  the  prayers  of  many  will  as- 
cend with  his  own  to  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  for  a 
blessing."  As  believing  parents  formerly  enjoyed  this 
privilege,  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  they  are  de- 

*  Sfi  Appendix,  Note  F. 


88  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

prived  of  it  now.  Under  this  last  and  best  dispensation 
of  the  gospel,  when  it  might  be  expected  that  privileges 
would  be  uniformly  increased,  and  burthens  diminished, 
how  unreasonable  the  supposition  that  believers  are  cut 
off  from  an  inestimable  privilege,  which  was  secured  to 
them  by  the  Mosaic  ritual.     Lev.  xii.  3. 

4.  Had  children  been  deprived  of  their  interest  in  the 
covenant  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  believing  Jewish 
parents  in  the  primitive  church  would  have  undoubtedly 
complained.  In  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  many  thousands 
of  the  Jews  believed,  who  were  all  zealous  of  the  law. 
They  were  tenacious  even  of  their  former  burthens  ;  and 
can  we  suppose  they  would  cheerfully  relinquish  their  ac- 
customed privileges?  Prepared,  as  Mr.  'Edwards  ex- 
presses it,  "  to  wrangle  for  a  rite,  quarrel  for  a  fast,  and 
almost  fight  for  a  new  moon  ;"  would  they  see  their  chil- 
dren cut  off  from  the  covenant  of  promise,  and  denied  its 
token,  without  a  struggle?  Yet  we  hear  not  a  word  of 
complaint  on  the  subject.  There  was  no  objection  to  the 
gospel,  by  friend  or  foe,  on  this  ground.  It  is  morally 
certain,  therefore,  that  under  the. present  dispensation,  as 
under  the  ancient,  the  children  of  covenanting  parents 
are  to  be  publicly  dedicated  to  the  Lord. 

5.  The  Jewish  prosolyte  baptism  furnishes  a  conclu- 
sive argument  iri  favor  of  the  baptism  of  children  with 
their  parents.  At  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  appearance, 
and  for  ages  previous,  the  Jews  had  been  accus- 
tomed, not  only  to  circumcise  their  proselytes,  but  to 
baptize  them,  together  with  their  children. — As  the  ex- 
istence of  such  a  practice  among  the  Jews  has  been  dis- 
puted, and  as  much  has  been  made  to  depend  upon  it,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  establish  it  by  proof.     And, 

(1.)  The  baptism  of  proselytes  comports  entirely  with 
the  genius  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  and  with  the  views 
which  the  Israelites  were  accustomed  to  entertain  of  the 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM. 


89 


Gentile  nations.  Nothing  was  more  common  among  this 
people  than  lustrations,  and  purifications  by  washing,  or 
baptism.  In  these,  the  external  part  of  their  religion  in 
no  small  degree  consisted.  See  Heb.  ix.  10.  And  as 
they  considered  all  the  Gentiles  to  be  impure,  unclean, 
how  natural  was  it  for  them  to  insist,  when  any  of  these 
came  over  to  their  religion,  that  they  should  be  ceremoni- 
ally purified  by  the  application  of  water? 

(2.)  That  the  Jews  were  familiar  with  baptism,  previ- 
ous to  the  coming  of  Christ,  is  implied  in  the  question 
addressed  to  John  by  those  who  were  sent  to  him  from 
Jerusalem  :  "  Why  baptizest  thou  then,  if  thou  be  not  the 
Christ,  neither  Elias,  neither  that  prophet  ?"  John  i.  25. 
The  inquiry  was  not,  '  What  new  rite  is  this  V  but  '  Why 
do  you  administer  it?'  They  had  been  long  acquainted 
with  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  but  if  John  was  "  not  the 
Christ,  neither  Elias,  neither  that  prophet,"  they  under- 
stood not  by  what  authority,  or  for  what  reason,  he  had 
undertaken  to  baptize. 

(3.)  All  the  Rabbins,  ancient  and  modern,  bear  tes- 
timony to  the  custom  of  baptizing  proselytes.  Thus  in 
the  Babylonian  Talmud,  the  text  of  which  was  composed 
as  early  as  the  close  of  the  second  century,  it  is  written  : 
"  When  a  proselyte  is  received,  he  must  be  circumcised  ; 
and  when  he  is  cured,  they  baptize  him  in  the  presence 
of  two  wise  men.  Or  if  it  be  a  woman,  the  women  lead 
her  to  the  waters." 

"  The  proselytes  enter  not  into  covenant,  but  by  cir- 
cumcision, baptism,  and  sprinkling  of  blood." 

"  He  is  no  proselyte,  unless  he  be  circumcised  and 
baptized.     If  he  be  not  baptized,  he  remains  a  Gentile." 

"  Your  fathers  did  not  enter  into  covenant  but  by  cir- 
cumcision, and  baptism,  and  sprinkling  of  blood  ;  so 
neither  do  proselytes  enter  into  covenant  but  by  circum- 
cision, and  baptism,  and  sprinkling  of  blood." 


90  SUBJECTS     OF    BAPf ISJf. 

"  They  baptize  an  infant  proselyte  (parvulum)  accord- 
ing to  the  judgment  of  the  Sanhedrim  ;"  and  "  if  it  has 
been  bereaved  of  its  father,  three  men  must  be  present  at 
the  baptism,  who  may  be  as  a  father  to  it." 

"  If  a  Gentile  woman  is  made  a  proselyte,  cum  jam  est 
gravida,  her  child  has  no  need  of  baptism ;  because  the 
baptism  of  the  mother  answers  for  the  child.  Otherwise', 
it  must  be  baptized."* 

In  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  it  is  said,  "  Behold  one 
finds  an  infant  cast  out,  and  baptizes  him  in  the  name  of 
a  servant.  Do  thou  also  circumcise  him  in  the  name  of 
a  servant.  But  if  he  baptize  him  in  the  name  of  a  free- 
man, do  .thou  also  circumcise  him  in  the  name  of  a  free- 
man, "t 

Maimonides  gives  us  the  following  account  of  the  forms 
of  initiation  among  the  Jews  :  "  In  all  ages,  when  a  Gen- 
tile is  willing  to  enter  into  the  covenant  of  Israel,  and 
place  himself  under  the  wings  of  the. Divine  Majesty,  and 
take  upon  him  the  yoke  of  the  law,  he  must  be  circum- 
cised, and  baptized,  and  bring  a  sacrifice  ;  or  if  it  be  a 
woman,  be  baptized  and  bring  a  sacrifice  :  As  it  is  writ- 
ten, '  As  ye  are,  so  shall  the  stranger  be.'  Numb.  xv.  15. 
How  are  ye?  By  circumcision,  and  baptism,  and  bring- 
ing a  sacrifice.  So  likewise  the  stranger,  through  all 
your  generations,  by  circumcision,  and  baptism,  and 
bringing  a  sacrifice." 

"  An  Israelite  that  takes  a  little  heathen  child,  or  that 
finds  an  heathen  infant,  and  baptizes  him  for  a  proselyte, 
behold  he  is  a  proselyte. "t 

(4.)  Other  writers  besides  Jews,  ancient  and  modern, 
who  have  paid  most  attention  to  the  subject,  and  been  in  the 
most  favorable  circumstances  to  form  an  opinion,  have 

*  In  Wall's  Introduction  to  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  and  Lighlfoot's  Horse  He- 
braicae  on  Matt.  iii.  C. 

f  In  Wall's  Introduction  to  Hist,  of  In.  Bap. 


SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  91 

been  generally  agreed  in  maintaining  that  the  Jews  bap- 
tized their  proselytes. 

Arrian,  a  heathen  philosopher  at  Rome,  A.  D.  140, 
reproaches  those  who  turned  proselytes  to  the  Jews,  call- 
ing them  (p'sPa/iftevovg)  the  baptized  ones.* 

Cyprian,  a  Christian  father' of  the  third  century,  says, 
"  The  case  of  the  Jews  who  were  to  be  baptized  by  the 
Apostles  was  different  from  that  of  the  Gentiles;  for  the 
Jews  had  already,  and  a  long  time  ago,  the  baptism  of' 
the  law  and  of  Moses,  and  were  now  to  be  baptized  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ. "t  It  is  evident  from  this,  that 
Cyprian  supposed  the  Jews  to  have  administered  baptism 
to  one  another  and  to  their  proselytes,  even  from  the  time 
of  Moses. 

Leo  Modena,  in  his  History  of  the  Modern  Jews, 
speaking  of  their  manner  of  admiting  a  proselyte,  says, 
"  They  take  and  circumcise  him,  and  as  soon  as  he  is 
well  of  his  sore,  he  is  to  wash  himself  all  over  in  water ; 
and  this  is  to  be  done  in  the  presence  of  three  Rabbins. 
From  thenceforth  he  becomes  as  a  natural  Jew."f 

Lightfoot  says,  "  You  see  baptism  inseparably  joined 
to  the  circumcision  of  proselytes."  "  The  baptism  of  in- 
fants was  a  thing  as  well  known  in  the  church  of  the 
Jews,  as  ever  it  has  been  in  the  Christian  church. "|| 

Reiskius,  who  wrote  a  treatise  on  the  baptisms  of  the 
Jews,  says,  "  Jewish  baptism  is  a  solemn  rite  instituted 
by  God,  in  which  proselytes  of  both  sexes,  in  the  presence 
of  three  credible  witnesses  are  dipped  in  water,  that  be- 
ing legally  cleansed  and  regenerated,  they  may  enter  on 
the  profession  of  a  new  religion.^ 

Jahn  treats  the  subject  somewhat  at  length,  and  is  de- 
cidedly of  the  opinion  that  the  initiation  of  the  proselyte 
was  not  complete  until  after  baptism. fl 

*  Dissert,  in  Epiclet.  Lib.  ii.  Cap,  9.  't  Epis.  73,  ad  Jubianum. 

%  Part  v.  Chap.  2.  |j  Horse  Hebraicae  in  Matt.  iii.  6. 

§  Diss,  de  Bap.  Judcorum.  1T  Archaeology,  Sect.  3:25. 


92  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

Rosenmuller  and  Kuinoel  both  say,  that  "  the  traces 
of  this  rite  (baptism)  are  found  in  the  baptism  of  prose- 
lytes :  As  it  is  handed  down  by  the  Jews  with  an  entire 
agreement,  that  if  any  one  should  come  over  from  the 
Gentiles  to  the  religion  of  the  Jews,  both  himself,  with 
his  wife,  and  children,  and  infants,  were  to  be  baptiz- 
ed."* 

It  would  be  needless  to  multiply  authorities  in  proof  of 
this  point.  Those  who  are  not  satisfied,  and  wish  to  in- 
vestigate the  subject  farther,  may  consult  the  authors  re- 
ferred to  in  the  margin.t  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  individuals,  whose  opinions  were 
founded,  not  on  any  positive  evidence  against  the  prac- 
tice in  question,  but  merely  on  the  silence  of  certain  Jew,- 
ish  writers  respecting  it,|  the  judgment  of  the  learned 
has  been  given  with  singular  explicitness  and  unanimity 
in  its  favor. 

(5.)  I  only  add,  that  the  existence  of  baptism  among  the 
Jews  can  hardly  be  accounted  for,  unless  it  be  traced  to 
a  period  anterior  to  the  commencement  of  the  Christian 
era.     We  certainly  know  that  they  baptized  their  prose- 

*  Scholia  in  Matt.  iii.  G. 
'  t  Selden  de  Jure  Nat.  et  Gent.  Lib.  ii.  Cap.  4.  p.  158.  item  de  Synedriis ; 
item  de  Successionibus  ;  Jacob.  Alttngii  de  Proselytis,  Praelectio  vii.  Thes. 
27  j  Michaelis  Dogm.  Sec.  180;  Ernesti  Vindiciae  Arbit.  Div.  Sec.  49; 
Ainsworth  on  Gen.  17 ;  Dr.  Hammond's  Annotations  on  Matt,  iii,  xix,  xxiii ; 
also  his  Six  Queries ;  also  his  Defence  of  In.- Baptism;  Godwin's  Moses 
and  Aaron  ;  Wetstein's,  Henry's,  and  Scott's  Comment,  on  Matt.  iii.  6; 
Clarke's  Comment,  on  Matt,  xxviii.  19;  Doddridge's  Lectures,  Prop.  154; 
Calmet's  and  Brown's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Art.  Proselyte ;  Witsius' 
Economy  of  Covenants,  Vol.  iii.  p.  381  ;  Prideaux'  Connexion,  Vol.  iii.  p. 
411 ;  Stackhouse's  Hist,  of  the  Bible,  Vol.  v.  p.  286  ;  Wall's  Introduction 
to  Hist,  of  In.  Baptism;  Wood's  Lectures  on  In  Bap.  p.  48;  Priestly's 
Monthly  Repository,  Vol.  vii.  p.  12;  Chris.  Observer  for  1819,  p.  604. 

\  Josephus'  Account  of  the  Proselyting  of  the  Idumeans  by  Hvrcanus,  if 
it  does  not  imply,  is  very  consistent  with,  the  idea  of  their  baptism.  They 
submitted,  it  is  said,  not  only- to  circumcision,  but  to  "the  rest  of  the  Jew- 
ish customs."    Antiq.  Lib.  xiii.  Cap.  9.  Sec.  1. 


SUBJECTS    Or    BAPTISM.  9$ 

lytes  in  the  second  century,  and  have  continued  to  do  so 
in  all  periods  since.  But  how  did  they  come  in  posses- 
sion of  this  rite  ?  Did  they  copy  it  from  the  Christians  ? 
Is  it  likely  that,  so  early  as  the  second  century,  when 
Christianity  was  "  every  where  spoken  against,"  and  not 
sufficiently  established  to  invite  the  imitation  of  any,  the 
Jews,  its  most  inveterate  enemies,  should  copy  one  of  the 
sacraments  of  the  despised  Nazarene,  and  incorporate  it 
among  the  institutions  of  their  venerated  lawgiver  ?  To 
those  who  have  any  knowledge  of  Jewish  prejudices,  the 
supposition  is  utterly  incredible.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  the  Jews  must  have  received  the  custom  of  baptizing 
proselytes  (as  they  profess)  from  the  patriarchs  of  their 
nation,  and'that  it  was  in  common  use  at  the  coming  of 
the  Saviouf. 

When  John  commenced  baptizing  in  the  wilderness  of 
Judea,  he  introduced  no  new  rite  into  the  religion  of  the 
Jews,  nor  was  he  ever  complained  of  as  an  innovator. 
And  when  our  Saviour  directed  his  disciples  to  go  and 
baptize  the  nations,  he.  instituted  no  new  rite,  but  mere- 
ly adopted  and  sanctioned  a  previously  existing  Jewish 
institution.  "  The  work  of  proselyting  men  to  the  true 
religion  had  before  been  carried  on  within  narrow  limits. 
It  was  now  to  be  carried  on  extensively,  and  baptism  (as 
before)  was  to  be  administered  to  all  proselytes.  '  Go  ye, 
and  proselyte  the  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  " 
Clearly,  the  disciples  must  have  understood  their  Master 
to  intend  here  that  kind  of  baptism  to  which  both  they 
and  he  had  been  accustomed,  viz.  the  baptism  of  children 
icith  their  parents.  Under  these  circumstances,  instead 
of  needing  an  express  command  to  authorize  the  baptism 
of  children,  they  must  have  needed  a  prohibition  to  pre« 
vent  their  doing  it.* 

^  See  Appendix,  Note  Cr, 


04  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISIvL 

But  this  leads  me  to  observe, 

6.  That  Christ  and  his  Apostles  taught  and  practised 
jti'st  as  we  might  expect,  on  supposition  they  intended  that 
children  should  be  baptized ;  and  just  as  we  should  not 
expect,  on  the  contrary  supposition.  In  order  to  deter- 
mine what  we  might  or  might  not  expect  of  Christ  and 
his  Apostles,  it  will  be  necessary  that  we  keep  in  mind 
the  established  customs  of  the  period  in  which  they  lived. 
In  the  Jewish  church",  children  had  always  been  connect- 
ed with  their  parents.  They  were  early  given  up  to  God, 
and  received  the  seal  of  his  everlasting  covenant.  Also 
the  children  of  proselytes  were  connected  in  covenant 
with  their  parents,  and  entitled  to  the  initial  rites  of  cir- 
cumcision and  baptism.  What  then  might  be  expected 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  on  supposition  they  intended 
to  put  an  end  to  this  state  of  things  ?  Not  silence,  surely. 
Silence  would  have  been  a  virtual  approbation  of  it.  The 
further  connexion  of  children  with  their  parents  they 
would  have  constantly  condemned.  They  would  have 
lost  no  opportunity  of  insisting  on  the  great  change,  in 
this  respect,  which  had  taken  place  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation, and  of  pressing  a  conformity  to  it  in  the  prac- 
tice of  Christians.  Did  they  pursue  such  a  course? 
Never,  in  any  instance.* 

But  what  might  be  expected  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles, 
on  suppositition  they  intended  that  the  connexion  of 
children  with  their  parents  should  be  continued  ?.  Not, 
indeed,  that  they  should  enjoin  it  by  express  precepts ; 
for  this  would  be  to  enjoin  expressly  what  every  one  al- 
ready understood  and  practised.  But  they  would  be  like- 
ly often  to  allude  to  it  with  approbation,  and  to  drop  ex- 
pressions.which  implied  it.  They  would  be  likely  also, 
as  occasions  occurred,  to  baptize  households,  when  those 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  H,  . 


SUBJECTS    OP     BAPTISM.  95 

at  the  head  of  them  made  profession  of  their  faith.  And 
this  is  the  precise  course  pursued  by  our  Saviour  and  his 
Apostles.  The  peace  of  Christ  is  promised  to  rest  upon 
that  house  or  family  over  which  a  son  of  peace  presides. 
Luke  x.  6.  Salvation  came  to  the  house  or  family  of  Zac- 
cheus,  when  he  became  a  true  child  of  Abraham.  Luke 
xix.  9.  Pur  Saviour  applauded  the  practice  of  bringing 
infants  to  receive  his  blessing,  and  declared  that  "  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  Luke  xviii.  15.  He 
spoke  of  little  children  being  received  in  his  name,  or  as 
belonging  to  him.  Mark  ix.  37,  41.  Peter  taught  con- 
verted parents,  that  the  promise  was  to  them  and  to  their 
children.  Acts  ii.  39.  Paul  affirms  that  "  the  blessing 
of-  Abraham" — an  important  part  of  which  consisted  in 
the  covenant  connexion  of  his  children — "  has  come  on 
the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ."  Gal.  iii.  14.  He 
denominates  the  children  of  believing  parents  holy,  1  Cor.  • 
vii.  14;  and  addresses  them  as  being  in  some  way  con- 
nected with  the  churches.*  He  repeatedly  baptized 
households  on  the  profession  of  parents,  or  of  those  who 
presided  over  them.  Lydia  believed,  and  she  and  her 
household  were  baptized.  The  jailer  believed,  and  he 
and  all  his  were  baptized  straightway.  Acts  xvi.  15,  33. 
Paul  also  baptized  the  household  of  Stephanas.  1  Cor. 
i.  16.. 

I  know  it  will  be  said  that  the  term  household  does  not 
necessarily  imply  infants ;  and  perhaps  it  does  not  neces- 
sarily. Still,  few  instances  can  be  found,  among  the 
many  in  which  this  word  is  used  in  Scripture,  where 
children  are  not  evidently  included.  And  "  the  stress  of 
the  business,"  as  Dr.  Lightfoot  remarks,  "  lies  not  so 
much  in  this,  whether  it  can  be  proved  there  were  chil- 
dren in  these  households,  as  that,  if  there  were,  they  cer- 
tainly were  baptized." 
"  Compare  Eph.  i.  1  with  Eph.  vi.  1  ;  and  Col.  i.  2  with  Col.  iii.  20. 


96  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 

It  must  have  been  very  extraordinary,  even  in  Apos- 
tolic times,  if  each  of  these  households  was  composed 
entirely  of  adults,  who  were  all  converted  and  baptized 
together  on  a  personal  profession  of  faith.  It  may  be 
doubted  whether  there  have  been  three  other  such  in- 
stances from  that  day  to  the  present.*  And  why,  if  these 
remarkable  events  took  place,  were  they  not  distinctly 
recorded?  If  the  conversion  of  merely  the  heads  of  these 
families  was  of  sufficient  importance  to  have  place  in  the 
sacred  history,  why  should  the  simultaneous  conversion 
of  each  of  their  households  be  passed  over  in  silence  ? 

It  is  urged  as  evidence  that  the  family  of  Lydia  were 
all  professing  believers,  that  before  Paul  and  Silas  left 
Philippi,  they  entered  into  her  house  and  saw  and  com- 
forted the  brethren.  Acts  xvi.  40.  But  who  were  the 
brethren  ?  Doubtless,  the  whole  infant  church.  The 
members  would  all  wish  to  come  together,  to  hear  the 
instructions  and  receive  the  parting  blessing  of  their  spir- 
itual father ;  and  what  more  convenient  place  than  the 
house  of  Lydia?  It  is  evident,  on  the  face  of  the  record, 
that  of  the  family  of  Lydia  she  only  was  a  believer.  Her 
"  heart  the  Lord  opened."  And  after  she  and  her  house- 
hold had  received  baptism,  she  said,  "  If  ye  have  judged 
me  to  be  faithful,  come  into  my  house."  Acts  xvi.  14, 
15. 

The  jailer,  it  is  said,  "  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with 
all  his  house" — If  there  is  an  ambiguity  in  this  English 
phrase,  there  is  none  in  the  original ;  iiyalXtaaaTo  nuvoixl 
nertiazevxoig.  It  is  certain  from  the  Greek,  as  every  one 
acquainted  with  the  language  must  perceive,  that  the  be- 
lieving and  rejoicing  here  spoken  of,  being  in  the  singu- 
lar number,  can  refer  to  the  jailer  only. 

The  Apostle,  we  are  told,  testifies  of  the  household  of 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  I. 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  97 

Stephanas,  that  "they  have  addicted  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  the  saints."  1  Cor.  xvi.  15.  But  when  the 
Apostle  wrote  this,  they  had  been  baptized  several  years. 
Shall  we  suppose,  then,  that,  for  years  after  their  conver- 
sion, they  were  unmindful  of  the  necessities  of  saints? 
Or  is  it  not  far  more  probable  that  they  were  not  all  con- 
verted at  the  time  when  they  were  baptized  ? 

In  the  cases  here  considered,  we  have  full  evident  of 
the  baptism  of  the  households  of  Christians,  in  connex- 
ion with  that  of  their  parents,  or  guardians.  It  is  worthy 
of  remark,  that  we  have  no  instance  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment of  the  baptism  of  the  children  of  professing  Chris- 
tians, except  in  such  connexion.  In  other  words,  we 
have  ho  instance  of  the  baptism  of  such  children,  on  their 
oion  jnofession.  Is  not  this  a  remarkable  circumstance, 
and  one  hard  to  be  accounted  for  on  the  principles  of 
those  who'  reject  infant  baptism  ?  The  children  of  pro- 
fessing Christians,  during  the  Apostolic  age,  had  become 
very  numerous  ;  and  in  all  probability,  thej  were  often 
converted.  And  why  is  it,  if  they  were*  ngt  baptized 
with  their  parents,  that  we  have  no  intimation,  in  any  in- 
stance, of  their  subsequent  baptism  ? 

To  me,  the  New  Testament  appears,  in  this  respect  as 
in  others,  precisely  what  tte  might  expect  it  would  be,  on 
supposition  that  the  covenant  connexion  of  children  with 
their  parents  was  intended  to  be  continued  and  perpet- 
uated.- 

7.  It  only  remains  that  I  adduce  the  testimony  of 
history  in  favor  of  the  practice  of  infant  baptism.  The 
pertinence  and  weight  of  this  kind  of  evidence  may  be 
seen  in  the  following  quotation  from  an  eminent  Baptist 
writer  :  "  I  will  grant  it  is  probable,  that  what  all  or  most 
of  the  churches  practised  immediately  after  the  Apostles' 
times,  had  been  appointed  or  practised  by  the  Apostles 
themselves ;  for  it  is  hardly  to  be  imagined  that  any  con- 


y~  SUBJECTS    OP     BAPTISM. 

siderable  body  of  these  ancient  Christians,  and  much  less 
that  the  whole,  should  so  soon  deviate  from  the  customs 
and  injunctions  of  their  venerable  founders,  whose  author- 
ity they  held  so  sacred.  New  opinions  or  practices,  are 
usually  introduced  by  degrees,  and  not  without  opposition. 
Therefore,  in  regard  to  baptism,  a  thing  of  such  universal 
concern  and  daily  practice,  I  allow  it  to  be  very  probable 
thaf  the  primitive  churches  kept  to  the  Apostolic  pattern."* 

Among  the  immediate  successors  of  the  Apostles,  there 
were  but  few  writers  whose  works  have  come  down  to  us 
with  unquestioned  authority ;  and  in  these,  the  baptism 
of  infants  is  rather  alluded  to  and  implied  as  an  existing 
and  approved  practice,  than  expressly  inculcated.  I  have 
shown  already  that  the  Christian  fathers  considered  bap- 
tism as  having  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision  ;  and 
also  that  they  considered  the  infant  children  of  believing 
parents  as  in  some  way  connected  with  the  church. t  But 
in  both  these  propositions,  it  is  implied,  that  such  children 
were  regarded  as  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

Hermas,.  whose  name  is  mentioned  by  Paul,  Rom.  xvi. 
14,  and  who  is  thought  by  some  to  have  written  his  Pas- 
tor before  John  wrote  his  Gospel,  says:  "All  infants  are 
in  honor  with  the  Lord,  and  are  esteemed  first  of  all." 
And  again  :  "  The  baptism  of  water  is  necessary  to%ill"\ 

Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  about  forty  years  after  the 
Apostolic  age,  says  :  "  There  are  many  among  us  of  both 
sexes,  some  sixty,  and  some  seventy  years  old,  who  were 
made  disciples  of  Christ  (&e  natdu>r}  from  their  child- 
hood."^. These  children  must  have  been  made  disciples, 
years  before  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John.  They  were 
doubtless  made  such  by  baptism  ;  for  the  same  word  is 
used  by  Justin  which  was  used  by  Christ  in   the  commis- 

*  Gales  Reflections  on  Wall,  p.  398.  f  Sections  iii.  and  iv. 

\  In  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Baptism,  Part  i.  Chap.  1—3. 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  99 

sion,  "  Go  ye  and  disciple   all  nations,  baptizing  them." 
Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

Irenaeus,  who  wrote  a  few  years  later  than  Justin,  says  : 
'•'  Christ  passed  through  every  age.  For  infants  he  be- 
came an  infant,  that  he  might  sanctify  infants."* 

Again  :  "  Christ  came  to  save  all  persons  who  by  him 
(renascuntur  in  Deum)  are  baptized  unto  God,  infants, 
and  little  ones,  and  children,  and  youths,  and  elder  per- 
sons. "* 

The  only  objection  to  this  testimony  is,  that  Irenaeus 
here  expresses  baptism  by  a  word  which  literally  denotes 
regeneration,  putting,  by  a  common  figure,  the  thing  sig- 
nified for  the  sign  That  he  really  intended  to  express 
baptism  by  this  word,  is  evident  from  his  use  of  it  in  other 
instances.  "  When  Christ  gave  his  apostles  the  com- 
mand of  regenerating  unto  God,  he  said,.  Go  and  leach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them." — This  mode  of  expression 
was  common  in  the  primitive  church.  Justin  Martyr,  de- 
scribing the  manner  in  which  persons  were  admitted  to 
the  church,  says  :  "  They  ate  regenerated  in  the  same 
way  of  regeneration  in'  which  we  are  regenerated  ;  for 
they  are  -washed  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  Dr.  Wall,  who  better 
understood  the  phraseology  of  the  early  Christian  writers 
jn  relation  to  this  subject  than  any  author  with  whom  I 
am  acquainted,  says :  "  Any  man,  who  has  been  at  all 
conversant  with  the  Fathers,  will  be  satisfied  that  they 
as  constantly  meant  baptized  by  the  word  regenerated,  as 
we  mean  the  same  by  the  word  christened."  Accordingly, 
he  does  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  the  passage  above  cited 
from  Irenaeus  as  an  "  express  mention  of  baptized  infants." 
Whiston  a  learned  Baptist,  admits  the  same.  "  This," 
says  he,  "  is  a  thing  undeniable ,  by  any  modest  arguer."f 

*  In  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Baptism,  Part  i.  Chap.  1 — 3. 
t  In  Wall's  Defence,  p.  41» 


100 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM. 


Tertullian  was  cotemporary  with  Irenseus,  though  a  lit- 
tle later.  His  testimony  on  the  subject  before  us  is  as 
follows  :  "  They  whose  office  it  is  to  administer  baptism 
should  know  that  it  is  not  to  be  given  rashly."  Therefore, 
according  to  every  persons'  condition,  and  disposition, 
and  age,  the  delay  of  baptism  is  more  profitable,  espe- 
cially in  the  case  of  little  children.  For  why  is  it  neces- 
sary that  the  sponsors  should  incur  danger  ?  For  they 
may  either  fail  of  their  promises  by  death,  or  may  be  dis- 
appointed by  a  child's  proving  to  be  of  a  wicked  dispo- 
sition. Our  Lord  indeed  says,  Forbid  them  not  to  come 
to  me.  Let  them  come,  then,  when  they  are  grown  up  ; 
when  they  understand  ;  when  they  are  taught  whither 
they  are  to  come.  Let  them  become  Christians,  when  they 
are  able  to  know  Christ.  Why  should -their  innocent  age 
make  haste  to.  baptism  ?  Men  act  more  cautiously  in 
temporal  concerns.  Worldly  substance  is  not  committed 
to  those  to  whom  divine  things  are  entrusted.  Let  them 
know  how  to  ask  for  baptism,  that  you  may  seem  to  give 
to  him  that  asketh. — It  is  for  a  reason  of  no  less  impor- 
tance, that  unmarried  persons,  both  those  who  were  never 
married,  and  those  who  have  been  deprived  of  their  part- 
ners, should,  on  account  of  their  exposure  to  temptation, 
be  kept  waiting,  till  they  are  either  married,  or  confirmed 
in  a  habit  of  continency.  They  who  understand  the 
importance  of  baptism,  will  be  more  afraid  of  hastening 
to  receive  it,  than  of  delay."*  • 

It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  children*  spoken  of  in 
this  passage  were  literally  infants.  '  They  are  called  (par- 
vulos)  little  children  ;  were  brought  by  sponsors  ;  and  are 
represented  throughout  as  not  yet  arrived  to  years  of  un- 
derstanding. Neither  can  it  be  doubted,  in  view  of  the 
above  testimony,  that  it  was  in   the  days  of  Tertullian, 

*  De  Baplismo,  Cap.  xviii. 


SUBJECTS    OF     BAPTISM.  10  L 

within  a  hundred  years  of  the  Apostles,  a  general  custom, 
sustained  as  was  supposed  by  the  command  of  Christ,  to 
bring  such  children  to  baptism.  Tertullian  evidently 
speaks  of  it  as  a  general  custom,  and  quotes  the  injunction 
of  our  Lord.  '  Forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me,'  as 
having  reference  to  it.  But  then  he  advises  a  delay. 
Why  ?  Not  because  he  thought  infant  baptism  unauthor- 
ized, or  an  innovation ;  this  is  not  intimated  :  But  be- 
cause of  certain  erroneous  opinions  which  he  entertained 
in  regard  to  the  mystical  efficacy  of  baptism.  He  sup- 
posed that  with  baptism  was  connected  the  forgiveness  of 
sins;  and  that  sins  committed  after  baptism  were  next  to 
unpardonable.  He  therefore  urged,  that  "to  every  one's 
condition,  disposition,  and  age,  the  delay  of  baptism  is 
more  profitable ;  especially  in  the  case  of  little  children," 
and  "  unmarried  persons."  He  advised,  that  all  persons 
should  delay  baptism,  till  they  were  either  brought  to  the 
verge  of  the  grave,  or  were  in  some  way  released  from 
the  temptations  of  life.* 

With  the  absurd  opinions  of  this  father,  we  have  noth- 
ing to  do.  It  is  merely  as  a  witness  to  a  fact  that  he  is 
introduced.  And  there  is  no  father  whose  testimony,  as 
to  the  general  practice  of  infant  baptism  in  the  primitive 
age,  is  more  convincing  than  that  of  Tertullian.  He 
was  an  honest  but  fanciful,  whimsical  writer  ;  embraced 
many  strange  and  peculiar  notions  ;  and  was  finally  eject- 
ed from  the  communion  of  the  church. 

Cotemporary  with  Tertullian  was  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria. In  the  follovving  passage  from  his  writings,  we 
have  a  striking  allusion  to  the  baptism  of  children  by  the 

*  In  the  third  and  fourth  cenlury,  this  delay  of  baptism  prevailed  to  an 
alarming  extent.  "  Men  lived  in  sin,''  says  Milner,  "  as  long  as  they  thought 
they  could  safely,  and  deferred  baptism  till  their  near  approach  to  death, 
under  the  groundless  hope  of  washing  away  all  their  guilt  at  once."  Ecc. 
Hist.  Vol.  ii.  p.  276. 

*9 


102 


SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM. 


Apostles,  which  he  seems  to  think  was  ordinarily  per- 
formed by  immersion.  He  is  giving  directions  respecting 
the  rings  to  be  worn  on  the  fingers  of  Christians,  and  the 
seals  suitable  to  be  engraven  on  them,  and  says  :  "Let 
your  seal  be  a  Dove,-  or  a  fish,  or  a  ship  under  sail,  or  a 
harp,  or  an  anchor  (which  Saleneus  made  his  choice  ;) 
and  if  any  one  be  a  fisherman,  let  him  think  of  an  Apos- 
tle, and  the  children  taken  from  the  water."*  He  recom- 
mends the  figure  of  an  Apostle  baptizing  a  little  child,  as 
a  suitable  one  to  be  engraved. 

Origen  was  born  A.  D.  185,'or  85  years  after  the  Apos- 
tles. His  testimony  to  the  baptism  of  infants  is  direct 
and  convincing.  "  According  to  the  usage  of  the  church, 
baptism  is  given  (etiam  parvulis)  even  to  infants ;  when 
if  there  were  nothing  in  infants  which  needed'  forgive- 
ness and  mercy,- the  grace  of  baptism  would  seem  to  be 
superfluous." 

Again  :  "  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  Of  what  sins?  Or  when  have  they  sinned  ?  'Or 
can  there  be  any  reason  for  the  laver  in  their  case,  un- 
less it  be  according  to  the  sense  mentioned  above,  that 
no  one  is  free  from  pollution,  though  he  has  lived  but  one 
day  Upon  earth;  and  because  by  baptism  native  pollution 
is  taken  away,  therefore  infants  arc  baptized." 

Still  again  :  "  The  church  received  a  tradition  from  the 
Apostles  to  give  baptism  even  to  infants."t 

Respecting  the  traditions  of  the  Apostles  and  the 
practice  of  the  church,  Origen  had  the  best  possible  means 
of  information  ;  for  his  grandfather,  Or  at  most  his  great 
grandfather  (both  of  whom  were  Christians)  must  have 
been  cotemporary  with  the  Apostles  themselves.  Be- 
sides ;  he  was  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  his  time  ; 
had  travelled  in  various  countries;  and  was  acquainted  with 

#  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Part  i.  Chap.  3. 

t  Horn.  viii.  on  Lev.  12;  Horn,  on  Luke  14 ;  and  Com.  on  Rom.  Lib.  5. 


SUBJECTS  OP  BAPTISM.  103 

the  usages  of  Christians  throughout  the  world.  He  not 
only  makes  mention  of  infant  baptism,  but  argues  from  it 
in  proof  of  original  sin.  His  argument  would  have  had 
no  weight,  had  infant  baptism  been  a  new  or  questionable 
practice. 

There  is  no  escaping  from  the  testimony  of  Origen,  but 
by  depreciating  Ruffinus's  translation  of  his  works.  But 
some  of  the  passages  usually  quoted  from  Origen  have  no 
connexion  with  this  translation.  They  are  taken',  in  part 
from  a  translation  by  Jerome,  and  in  part  from  the  origin- 
al Greek.  The  authenticity  of  the  passages  above  cited 
has  been  satisfactorily  vindicated  by  Dr.  Wall.* 

I  shall  next  adduce  the  testimony  of  Cyprian  and  the 
Council  of  Carthage.  Cyprian  was  for  a  short  time  co- 
temporary  with  Origen.  The  Council  of  Carthage  over 
which  he  presided,  was  convened  A.  D.  253,  or  153  years 
subsequent  to  the  Apostles.  This  Council  consisted  of 
sixty-six  bishops,  who  were  called  together  to  determine, 
among  other  things  (so  prevalent  was  the  idea  that  bap- 
tism had  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision,)  whether  it 
was  lawful  to  administer  baptism  to  infants  before  they 
were  eight  days  old.  The  following  passage  is  from  the 
Letter  of  the  Bishops,  or  what  would  now  be  called  the 
Result  of  the  Council : 

"  Cyprian  and  the  rest  of  the  bishops  who  were  pre- 
sent in  Council,  sixty-six  in  number,  to  Fidust  our  broth- 
er greeting." — "  As  to  the  case  of  infants, — whereas  you 
judge  that  they  must  not  be  baptized  within  two  or  three 
days  after  they  are  born,  and  that  the  rule  of  circumcis- 
ion is  to  be  observed  ;  we  were  all  of  a  very  different  opin- 
ion. Not  one  ivas  of  your  mind,  but  we  all  rather  judged 
that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  is  to  be  denied  to  no  hu- 

*  Defence,  pp.  373 — 383.  Jerome  testifies  expressly  that  Origen  held  to 
infant  Baptism. 

f  The  name  of  the  Bishop  who  proposed  the  question. 


104  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

man  -being  that  is  born." — "  This,  therefore,  dear  broth- 
er, was  our  opinion  in  the  Council,  that  we  ought  not  to 
hinder  any  person  from  baptism  and  the  grace  of  God, 
who  is  merciful  and  kind  to  all.  And  this  rule,  as  it  holds 
for  all,  is,  we  think,  more  especially  to  be  observed  in  re- 
ference to  infants,  even  to  those  newly  born." 

"  Here,"  says  Mr.  Milner,  "  is  an  assembly  of  sixty-six 
pastors,  men  of  approved  fidelity  and  gravity,  who  had 
stood  tlfe  fiery  trial  of  some  of  the.  severest  persecutions 
ever  known  ;  who  had  testified  their  love  to  the  Lord 
Jesus  in  a  more  striking  manner  than  any  Anti-Pedobap- 
tists  have  had  an  opportunity  of  doing  in  our  days;  and 
who  seem  not  to  be  wanting  in  any  fundamental  of  godli- 
ness. Before  this  assembly  a  question  is  brought,  not 
whether  infants  should  be  baptized — none  contradicted 
this, — but  whether  they  should  be  baptized  immediately, 
or  on  the  eighth  day.  To  a  man  they  determine  to  bap- 
tize them  immediately.     Let  the  reader  consider."* 

Among  these  pastors,  there  were  some,  undoubtedly, 
who  were  advanced  in  age  ;  whose  ancestors  had  lived  in 
the  first  century,  and  were  well  acquainted  with  the 
practice  of  the  Apostles.  If  infant  baptism  were  an  inno- 
vation, is  it  possible  to  conceive  that  not  one  of  these 
men  should  be  acquainted  with  the  fact ;  or  if  acquainted 
with  it,  that  none  should  have  the  fidelity  to  oppose  the 
error  1 

In  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  by  some  ascribed  to 
Clement  of  Rome,  and  known  to  have  been  extant  in  the 
early  ages  of  the  Christian  Church,  it  is  said  :  "Baptize 
your  infants,  and  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admo- 
nition of  the  Lord."f 

In  the  Questions  and  Answers  to  the  Orthodox,  an 
ancient  work,  which  some  have  ascribed  to  Justin  Martyr, 

*  Ecc.  Hist.  Vol.  i.  p.  402. 

t  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Baptism,  Part  i.  pp.  426,  432. 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  105 

we  have  the  following  passage  :  "  The  difference  between 
those  (B§eq>i])  infants  that  have  been  baptized,  and  those, 
that  have  not,  will  be,  that  the  baptized  will  be  made 
partakers  of  the  blessings  granted  by  baptism,  and  the  un- 
baptized  not.  And  those  blessings  are  granted  for  the 
sake  of  the  faith  of  those  that  bring  them  to  baptism."* 

About  260  years  after  the  Apostles  lived  Optatus  Mile- 
vitanus.  Comparing  Christ  put  on  in  baptism  to  a  gar- 
ment, he  exclaims,  "  Oh  !  what  a  garment  is  this, 'which 
is  always  one,  and  which  fits  all  ages  and  shapes.  It  is 
neither  too  large  for  infants,  nor  too  small  for  young  men, 
nor  does  it  need  any  alteration  for  women?'* 

Basil  the  Great  was  cotemporary  with  Optatus,  or  per- 
haps a  little  earlier.  Theodore!  relates  that  he,  "  coming 
into  the  palace"  (of  Valens,  an  Arian)  "  and  seeing  the 
Emperor's  child  at  the  point  of  death,  undertook  that  he 
would  recover,  if  he  had  baptism  given  him  by  the  hands 
of  the  godly  ;  and  having  said  this,  he  went  away.  But 
the  Emperor  gave  order  to  some  that  were  present  of  the 
faction  of  Arius  to  baptize  {to  nadkov}  the  child."t 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  in  his  Oration  on  Basil,  represents 
him  as  having  been  consecrated  to  God,  and  carried  to 
the  baptismal  font,  in  his  infancy. — In  his  Oration  on 
Baptism,  Gregory  reasons  thus  :  "  Hast  thou  an  infant 
child?  Let  not  wickedness  have  the  advantage  of  time. 
Let  him  be  sanctified  from  his  infancy.  Let  him  be  ded- 
icated from  his  cradle  to  the  Spirit.  Thou  as  a  faint- 
hearted mother  and  of  little  faith,  art  afraid  of  giving  him 
the  seal,  because  of  the  weakness  of  nature.  Give  him 
the  trinity ,' that  great  and  excellent  preservative."  % 

Ambrose,  who  flourished  274  years  after  the  Apostles, 
says  :  "  Those  (parvuli)  little  children  who  are  baptized, 

*  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Part  i.  pp.  426,  432. 

f  Hist.  Ecc.  Lib.  iv.  Cap.  17. 

t  See  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  P.  i.  Chap,  ii, 


106  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

are  reformed  from  a  wicked  state  to  the  primitive  state  of 
their  nature." 

Again,  having  quoted  the  words  of  Christ, '  Unless  any 
one  is  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God,'  he  says:  "You  see  that  he  excepts 
no  one,  not  even  an  infant."* 

Chrysostom,  who  lived  2S0  years  after  the  Apostles, 
says :  "  Some  think  that  the  heavenly  grace  (of  baptism) 
consists  only  in  forgiveness  of  sins  :  but  I  have  reckoned 
up  ten  advantages  of  it.  For  this  cause  ioe  baptize  in- 
fants,  though  they  are  not  defiled  with  sin"  (or,  as 
Augustine  has  quoted  it  from  the  Greek  of  Chrysostom, 
"though  they  have  not  any  actual  sins")  "that  there 
may  be  superadded  to  them  saintship,  "righteousness, 
adoption,  inheritance,"  &c* 

Jerome,  who  was  cotemporary  with  several  of  the  fa- 
thers last  quoted,  says  :  "  The  children  of  Christians  are 
not  themselves  only  under  the  guilt  of  sin,  if  they  do  not 
receive  baptism  ;"  but  "  the  wickedness  is  also  imputed 
to  those  who  would  not  give  it  them."* 

Augustine  (or  Austin)  flourished  288  years  after  the 
Apostles,  and  is  styled  by  Milner  "the  great  luminary" 
of  the  age  in  which  he  lived.  'His  testimony  in  favor  of 
infant  baptism,  as  having  been  handed  down  from  the 
Apostles,  is  express  and  abundant. — In  his.  book  against 
the  Donatists,  speaking  of  the  efficacy  of  baptism  where 
faith,  by  necessity,  is  wanting,  he  says  :  "  This,  the  whole 
body  of  the  church  holds,  as  delivered  to  them  (cum  par- 
vuli  infantes  baptizantur)  in  the  case  of  little  infants  who 
are  baptized,  who  Certainly  cannot  believe  with  the  heart 
unto  righteousness  ;  and  yet  no  Christian  will  say  they  are 
baptized  in  vain." 

In  his  book  on  Genesis,  Augustine  says  :  "  The  custom 
of  our  mother,  the  church,  in  baptizing  infants  must  not 

*  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Part  i.  Chap.  13,  14,  15.' 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  .      107 

be  disregarded,  nor  accounted  useless;  and  it  must  by  all 
means  be  believed  to  be  (apostolica  traditio)  a  tradition 
of  the  Apostles." 

Again,  be  says,  that  infant  baptism  "came  not  by  any 
general  council,  or  by  any  authority  later  or  less  than  that 
of  the  Apostles." 

Still  again,  he  speaks  of  baptizing  infants  "  by  ihe  au- 
thority of  the  whole  church,  which  was  undoubtedly  de- 
livered by  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles." 

And  finally  he  says  :  "  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever 
heard  any  other  thing  from  any  Christians  that  received 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  neither  from  such  as  were 
of  the  Catholic  church,  nor  from  such  as  belonged  to  any 
sect  or  schism  ;  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  read  other- 
wise in  any  writer  that  I  could  find  treating  of  these  mat- 
ters, wrro  followed  the  canonical  Scriptures,  or  pretended 
to  do  so,"  "  that  infants  are  not  baptized  for  that  reason, 
viz.  that  they  may  receive  remission  vf  sins."* 

Pelagius  and  Celestius  flourished  at  the  same  time 
with  Augustine.  They  were  distinguished  for  their 
acuteness  and  learning,  and  had  personally  visited  nearly 
every  part  of  the  Christian  world.  They  were  the  foun- 
ders and  promoters  of  the  noted  Pelagian  heresy.  They 
denied  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  In  opposition  to  the 
errors  of  these  men,  the  whole  Orthodox  church,  with 
Augustine  at  its  head,  constantly  and  victoriously  urged 
the  baptism  of  infants  :  "  Why  are  infants  baptized  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  if  they  have  none  ?"  With  this  ar- 
gument, Pelagius  and  his  abettors  were  much  embar- 
rassed ;  and  had  recourse  to  a  variety  of  evasions  in 
order  to  escape  from  it.  Sometimes  they  affirmed,  that 
infants  had  actual  sins,  which  needed  forgiveness  ; — some- 
times, that  they  had  pre-existed,  and  that  it  was  for  sins 

•  See  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Vol.  i.  pp.  187—302. 


108  .  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

committed  in  some  former  state  that  they  were  brought  to 
baptism  ; — sometimes  they  said  that  infants  were  not  bap- 
tized for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  but  that  they  might  be 
sanctified  ; — and  sometimes,  that  they  were  baptized  for 
forgiveness,  not  that  they  had  any  sin,  but  because  they 
Were  baptized  into  a  church  where  forgiveness  was  to  be 
had:  To  such  straits  were  these  ^earned  heresiarchs  re- 
duced, in  order  to  reconcile  their  opinions  with  the  bap- 
tism of  infants.  How  easily  had  all  their  difficulties  been 
removed,  and  the  battery  which  so  much  annoyed  them 
been  demolished  at  once,  by  simply  denying  that  infants 
were  to  be  baptized.  So  strong  were  their  temptations  to 
make  such  a  denial,  that  Pelagius  complained  at  one  time 
of  its  being  slanderously  reported  that  he  had  made  it.  It 
is  morally  certain  that  he  would  have  made  it,  if  jvith  all 
his  learning,  and  in  his  various  travels,  he  had  discovered 
the  slightest  evidence  to  justify  him  in  such  a  course. 
Yet  he  never  did  make  it.  On  the  contrary,  he  asserts 
the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  in  the  strongest  terms. 
"  Baptism,"  says  he,  "  ought  to  be  administered  to  infants 
with  the  same  sacramental  words  which  are  used  in  the 
case  of  adult  persons."  Again  :  "  Men  slander  me,  as  if 
I  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants."  And 
again  :  "  J  never  heard  of  any,  not  even  the  most  impious 
heretic,  tcho  denied  baptism  to  infants.  .  For  who  can  be 
so  impious,  as  to  hinder  infants  from  being  baptized,  and 
born  again  in  Christ,  and  so  make  them  miss  of  the  king- 
dom of  God?" 

The  language  of  Celestius,  his  coadjutor,  is  equally  de- 
cisive. "  As  for  infants,  I  always  said  they  stand  in  need 
of  baptism,  and  ought  to  be  baptized."*  The  testimony 
of  these  men,  considering  the  circumstances  under  which 
it  was  given,  is  in  the  highest  degree  convincing  and  sat- 
isfactory. 

*  See  Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Vol.  i.pp.  62,  356—370. 


SUBJECTS  Of*  BAPTISM.  109 

To  these  testimonies  from  the  early  Christian  writers, 
it  should  be  added,  that  Catalogues  of  all  the  different 
sects  of  professing  Christians  in  the  four  first  centuries 
(the  very  periqd  when  infant  baptism  must  have  been  in- 
troduced, if  it  were  not  of  divine  original)  were  carefully 
written,  and  are  still  extant.*  "  In  these  catalogues,  the 
differences  of  opinion  which  obtained  in  those  respecting 
baptism  are  particularly  recounted  and  minutely  designat- 
ed. Some  sects  are  mentioned  which  made  no  use  of 
water  baptism  ;  and  the  different  ways  in  which  baptism 
was  administered  by  different  sects'  are  distinctly  describ- 
ed. Yet  there  is-  no  mention  of  any  except  those  who 
denied  water  baptism  altogether,  who  did  not  consider  in- 
fant baptism  as  a*  divine  institution." 

It  would  be  useless  to  multiply  testimonies  from  ancient 
writers,  or  to  trace  the  history  of  infant  baptism  to  a  later 
period  than  that  to  which  we  have  now  arrived  ;  as  it  is 
indisputable  that,  for  the  next  five  hundred  years,  this 
practice  universally  prevailed.  Dr.  Wall,  who  has  so 
thoroughly  investigated  the  subject  as  to  leave  little  to  be 
done  by  those  who  come  after  him,  assures  us,  that  the 
first  body  of  men,  of  which  he  can  find  any  account, 
who  denied  baptism  to  infants,  were  the  Petrobrussians 
(the  followers  of  Peter  de  Bruys)  a  sect  of  the  Albigenses, 
who  appeared  in  the  former  part  of  the  twelfth  century. 
And  Milner  says  that,  "  a  few  instances  excepted,  the  ex- 
istence of  ariti-Pedobaptism  seems  scarcely  to  have  taken 
place  in  the  church  of  Christ,  till  a  little  after  the  begin- 
ning of  the  reformation. "t 

In  opposition  to  the  mass  .of  testimony  which  has  been 
given,  as  to  the  practice  of  the  church  in  the  first  four 
centuries,  it  is  idle  to  bring   forward  the  opinions  of  cer- 

*  The  authors  of  these  Catalogues  were  Irenseus,  Epiphauius,  Philastri- 
us,  Augustine,  and  Theodoret.     See  Wall's  Hist.  P.  i.  Chap.  xxi. 
"t  See  Appendix,  Note  J. 

10 


110  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

tain  modern  writers,  that  "  in  primitive  times  none  were 
baptized  but  adults."  Such  opinions  have  no  weight 
with  us  ;  and  ought  to  have  none  with  any  person.  We 
have- the  means  of  examining  the  subject  for  ourselves: 
and  have  as  much  reason  to  believe,  as  we  have  to  believe 
anything  on  the  testimony  of  history,  that  in  the  early 
ages  of  the  Christian  church,  infant  baptism,  so  far  from 
being  unknown,  was  a  universally  approved  and  establish- 
ed custom. 

It  has  been  said,  by  way  of  objection,  that  there  are 
instances  of  persons — as  Jerome,  Gregory,  Ambrose, 
Chrysostom,  Augustine,  and  Constantirte  the  great — who 
were  born  of  Christian  parents,  but  who  were  not  baptiz- 
ed but  upon  their  own  profession.  It  will  appear,  however, 
on  examination,  thtit  not  one  of  these  instances  is  ■  in 
point.  "  With  respect  to  Jerome,"  says  Dr.  Wall,  "there 
is  no  evidence  that  he  was  not  baptized  in  his  infancy." 
The  father  of  Gregory  was  a  determined  and  bitter  ene- 
my to  Christianity,  till  his  son,  probably,  had'  become  of 
age.  He  belonged  to  a  "  sect,"  says  Milner,  "  most  re- 
sembling the  Samaritans,  who  professed  a  mixture  of  Ju- 
daism and  Pagariism.  To  this  opinion  he  was  extremely 
devoted,"  and  was  not  converted  to  the  Christian  faith  till 
many  years  subsequent  to  his  marriage.  He  would,  with- 
out doubt,  prohibit  the  baptism  of  his  son  in  infancy.* 
As  to  Ambrose  and  Chrysostom,  their  parents,  according 
to  Dr.  Wall,  were  heathens,  at  the  time  of  their  birth? 
and  for  many  years  afterwards. f  That  the  father  of  Au- 
gustine was  a  Christian  is  not  pretended ;  and  that  his 
mother  was  not  a  Christian  by  profession,  till  he  had  pass- 
ed the  period  of  childhood,  is  certain  from  his  own  words. 
For  he  says  of  her,  that  when  he  was  learning  oratory 
at  Carthage,  "  she  had  lately  begun  to  feel  God's  holy 

*  See  Milner's  Ecc.  Hist.  Vol.  ii.  pp.  272,  309. 
t  Hist,  of  In.  Bap.  Part  ii.  Chap.  iii. 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  Ill 

love,  and  had  beeu  washed  in  the  laver  of  baptism.""*  Of 
Constantine,  Eusebius  says,  that  he  "  was  the  only  one  of 
all  those  that  ever  were  emperors,  who  was  perfected  by 
baptism. "f  Consequently,  his  father,  though  a  friend  to 
the  Christians,  could  not  have  been  by  profession  of  their 
number. 

The  case  of  infant  communion  is  often  brought  forward, 
as  completely  invalidating  the  argument  from  history  in 
favor  of  infant  baptism. — It  is  true,  that  in  some  churches 
infant  communion  has  been  practised,  and  by  some  per- 
sons it  has  been  advocated,  both  in  ancient  and  modern 
times.  "  In  Cyprian's  time,"  says  Wall,  "  the  people  of 
the  church  of  Carthage  did  oftentimes  bring  their  chil- 
dren younger  than  had  been  ordinary  to  the  communion. "\ 
Or,  as  another  expresses  it;  they  were  accustomed  "  to 
give  a  piece  of  the  bread  soaked  in  wine  to  children  and 
the  sick. "||  In  later  periods,  when,  from  a  perversion  of 
our  Saviour's  words,  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son 
of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you,"  it 
was  believed  that  a  partaking  of  the  supper  was  essential 
to  salvation,  infant  communion  more  generally  prevailed. 
It. is  mentioned  by  Photius,  Augustine,  and  Paulinus, 
and  continues  to  be  practised  among  the  Greeks  to  the 
present  day.  "  They  crumble  the  consecrated  bread  into 
the  wine,  take  it  out  with  a  spoon,"  and  put  it  into  the 
mouths  of  infants.|| 

If  infant  baptism  were  founded  on  mere  historical  evi- 
dence ;  and"  if  this  evidence  were  as  clear  in  favor  of  in- 
fant communion  as  of  infant  baptism  ;  the  two  practices 
would  then  stand  on  equal  ground.  But  neither  of  these 
suppositions  is  founded  in  truth.     The  baptism  of  infants 

*  See  Milner's  Ecc.  Hist.  Vol.  ii  pp.  272,  309. 
t  Life  of  Constantine,  Lib.  iv.  Cap.  12. 
t  Hist  of  In.  Bap.  P.art  ii.  Chap.  9.  :  - 

y  Witsius'  Econ.  of  Gov.  Vol.  iii.  p.  432. 


112  SUBJECTS  OP  BAPTISM. 

rests  upon  the  Scriptures.  The  communian  of  infants,  to 
say  the  most  of  it,  receives  no  countenance  from  Scripture. 
Nor  is  the  argument  from  history,  in  the  two  cases,  by  any 
means  equal.  We  have  clear  intimations  of  infant  bap- 
tism in  the  Apostolic  age.  We  have  no  intimations  of 
infant  communion,  till  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  It 
appears  that  infant  baptism  was  universally  practised  in 
the  Christian  church.  We  have  no  evidence  that  infant 
communion  ever  was  universal.  The  fathers  Speak  con- 
fidently of  infant  baptism,  that  it  came  from  the  Apostles. 
Those  who  make  mention  of  infant  communion  never 
speak  of  it,  that  I  can  learn,  after  this  manner.  In  short, 
infant  baptism  bears  decisive  marks  of  a  divine  original. 
Infant  communion  is  manifestly  an  innovation  in  the 
church.  On  what  grounds/then,  can  infant  commun- 
ion be  urged,  as  invalidating  the  argument  in  favor  of 
infant  baptism  1 

Without  doubt,  all  the  churches  planted  by  the  Apos- 
tles were-  established  upon  the  same  plan.  Either  they 
all  baptized  infants,  or  they  all  rejected  them.  And  the 
practice  of  the  Apostles  in  this  matter  must  have  been 
universally  and  certainly  known.  All  the  Christians, 
among  whom  Paul  travelled  and  -preached,  knew  whether 
or  not  he  and  his  companions  baptized  their  children. 

'  And  if  the  Apostles  and  their  coadjutors  did  not  bap- 
tize children — if  they  established  churches  upon  the  plan 
of  adult  baptism  only;  at  what  period,  I  ask,  was  infant 
baptism  introduced  ?  And  how  must  the  persons  who 
first  attempted  to  introduce  it  have  been  received  1 
"  Would  not  ail  their  brethren,"  says  an  eloquent  writer,* 
whose  language  I  shall  freely  use,  "  immediately  cry  ouf 
upon  them,  and  demand,  '  By  what  authority  do  you  pre- 
sume to  perform  this  new,  this  unheard  of,   and  strange 

*  Mr.  Tovvgood.    • 


SUBJECTS    OP    BAPTISM.  113 

ceremony  of  baptizing  an  infant?'  Suppose  the  innova- 
tors to  have  urged  in  support  of  their  practice  the  same 
Scriptures  which  we  now  urge,  would  it  not  presently 
have  been  replied  upon  them  with  unanswerable  strength, 
'  Did  not  the  Apostles  and  first  preachers  of  Christianity 
understand  the  true  sense  and  force  of  these  Scriptures  ? 
Yet  we  all  perfectly  know,  and  you  cannot  but  own,  that 
not  one  of  them  ever  baptized  an  infant.  Look  into  all 
the  churches  throughout  the  ea/th,  and  you  will  find  that 
there  never  was  such  a  thing  known  or  heard  of  before 
amongst  Christians.' 

"What,  under  these  circumstances,  could  the  first 
baptizers  of  infants  possibly  reply  ?  Could  they  think  to 
justify  themselves  on  the  ground  of  Apostolic  injunction 
and  practice?  But  every  Christian  then  living  could 
have  stepped  forth,  and  borne  witness  to  the  falsehood  of 
such  a  pretence.  Or  could  they  hope  to  establish  this  in- 
vention of  their  own,  and  was  it  actually  established,  in 
direct  opposition  to  Apostolic  authority  ?  Impossible  to 
imagine!  What  then,  I  ask  again — (if  all  the  churches 
in  the  world  were  constituted  by  the  Apostles  upon  a  di- 
rectly opposite  plan) — what  could  the  first  baptizers  of 
infants  urge  in  favor  of  their  practice  ?  And  how  was  it 
possible  it  should  be  received  and  prevail,  yea,  so  univer- 
sally prevail,  that  the  learned  and  acute  Pelagius,  about 
three  hundred  years  after,  had  never  heard  of  a  church, 
amongst  either  Catholics  or  heretics,  which  did  not  ad- 
minister baptism  to  infants  ? 

"  Could  we  suppose  a  few  persons  of  so  singular  a  dis- 
position, as  to  run  into  this  novel  and  unheard  of  prac- 
tice, can  it  be  imagined  that  whole  churches  would  be  led 
blindly  away  after  them  ?  Or  if  whole  churches  might 
be  thus  seduced,  could  whole  nations  be  so  too  ?  Or  if 
whole  nations  might,  can  it  enter  into  the  heart  of  any  rea- 
sonable being,  that  all  the  nations  of  the  Christian  world 
*10 


114  SUBJECTS    OF    BAPTISM; 

should,  in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  fall  in  entirely  with 
this  anti-Apostolic  and  newly  invented  ceremony  of  reli- 
gion, and  apostatize  from  the  primitive  and  pure  doctrine 
Of  Christ? 

".The  extravagance  of  the  supposition  is  greatly  in- 
creased, by  remembering  that  the  church  was  early  divid- 
ed into  a  number  of  sects,  which  were  severe  and  watchful 
spies  upon  each  other's  conduct.  If  arty  of  them  had  in- 
novated in  the  matter  oi  baptizing  infants,  how  loudly 
would  the  rest  have  exclaimed  upon  the  innovation  !  But 
so  far,  it  seems,  were  they  from  this,  that  laying  aside 
their  prejudices  and  animosities,  they  all  surprizingly 
agree,  in  respect  to  infant  baptism,  to  depart  from  the 
Apostolic  practice,  and  by  an  unaccountable  confederacy, 
connive  at  one  another  in  this  dangerous  superstition  ! 
Strange,  beyond  all  belief,  that  amidst  their  mutual  accu- 
sations, reproaches  and  complaints,  We  meet  not,  in  all 
antiquity,  with  one  upon  this  head !" 

I  could  more  easily  account  (unaccountable  as  it  may 
be)  for  the  introduction  and  universal  spread  of  infant 
baptism  in  two  or  three  centuries,  than  I  could  for  its 
prevalence  without  altercation  and  controversy  among 
Christians.  Large  bodies  of  men  never  change  either 
their  sentiments  or  practice  all  at  once,  without  disputes. 
"And  if  infant  baptism  had  been  an  innovation,  a  cor- 
ruption of  one  of  the  special  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  it 
'would  not  have  been  introduced  in  the  early  days  of 
Christianity,  without  commotions,  controversies,  and  di- 
visions. But,  strange  to  tell,  the  pen  of  history  has  not 
transmitted  to  us  the  least  intimation  of  any  controversy 
about  it ;  though  it  has  furnished  us  with  catalogues  of 
all  the  heresies,  and  has  recorded  a  dispute  of  far  less 
consequence,  respecting  the  proper  time  of  baptizing  in- 
fants !" 

The  argument,  therefore,  comes  to  this :  If  infant  bap- 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  115 

tism  is  an  innovation,  it  confessedly  entered  the  church 
soon  after  the  canon  of  Scripture  closed ;  and  in  a  few 
years  more,  "  without  a  single  precept  to  warrant  or  an 
example  to  encourage  it,  yea,  with  the  well  known  prac- 
tice of  the  Apostles,  and  of  all  the  churches  they  planted, 
directly,  openly,  palpably  against  it, — under  all  these  dis- 
advantages it  so  universally  prevailed,  that  upon  the  face 
of  the  whole  earth  there  was  not  a  church  found,  where 
it  was  not  practised  !"  Yea  more,  it  entered  the  church, 
prevailed,  and  became  universal,  without  a  whisper  of 
opposition,*  without  a  word  of  dispute,  all  parties  agree- 
ing to  connive  at  the  error,  to  blot  every  trace  of  its  ori- 
gin from  the  page  of  history,  and  never  to  utter  a  single 
word  from  which  it  could  be  discovered  that  they  were 
conscious  of  having  departed  from  gospel  rules  !  To  him 
who  believes  this,  what  can  be  incredible  ! 

Is  it  not,  then,  morally  certain,  that  infant  baptism  is 
not  an  innovation  in  the  church,  but  was  sanctioned  by 
the  Apostles  themselves?  On  this  ground,  and  this  only, 
"  all  sacred  and  profane  history,  relating  to  the  subject, 
appears  plain  and  consistent,  from  Abraham  to  Christ, 
and  from  Christ  to  this  day." 

*  I  make  this  assertion,  with  a  perfect  recollection  of  the  testimony  of 
Tertullian.  He  did  not  consider  infant  baptism  as  new  or  unauthorized,  but 
merely  advised  to  delay  it,  as  he  did  that  of  unmarried  persons,  on  the 
ground  of  expediency.  *  m  ^ 


PART  III. 

ON   THE   IMPORT,   DESIGN,   AND   USES   OF  INFANT   BAP- 
TISM. 

In  the  foregoing  pages,  I  have  endeavored  to  vindicate 
the  propriety  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  to  show  that  it  is  of 
divine*  institution.  But  if  this  rite  is  of  divine  institution, 
it  doubtless  has  a  meaning, — which  may  be  gathered 
from  the  Scriptures,  and  which  ought  to  be  distinctly  un- 
derstood. .  Until  it  is  understood,  the  duties  growing  out 
of  it  will  not  be  discovered,  and  consequently  will  not  be 
performed. 

Besides ;  the  covenants  of  our  churches  often  require, 
not  only  that  parent's  bring  their  children  to  baptism,  but 
that  they  "instruct  them,  in  the  nature,  use,  and  end  of 
that  ordinance."  But  how  shall  parents  perform  this 
duty,  and  fulfil  this  important  part  of  their  covenant  en- 
gagements, unless  they  are  themselves  instructed,  as  to 
"the  nature,  use,  and  end"  of  the  ordinance  in  question? 

This  subjectassumes  additional  importance  from  the 
banner  in  which  it  has  been  hitherto  treated.  I  speak 
according  fo  my  most  sincere  convictions  when  I  say, 
that  no  subject  of  equal  claims,  within  the  whole  circle 
of  Christian  theology ^  has  been  so  much  neglected  as 
this.  And  when  it  has  been  discussed,  it  has  not  been, 
in  all  instances,  in  the  most  happy  manner.  The  labors 
of  some  have  tended  rather  to  involve  it  in  mystery,  and 
thus  guard  it  against  the  exceptions  of  Baptists,  than  to 
open  the  real  sense  of  Scripture,  and  afford  satisfaction  to 
impartial  minds. 


IMPORT,  DESIGN,  AND  USES  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.     J  17 

• 

It  may  be  remarked  further,  by  way  of  introduction, 
that  this  subject  is  one  in  which  Pedobaptists  alone  are 
directly  interested.  Until  our  brethren  of  other  denomi- 
nations admit  the  propriety  of  administering  baptism  to 
children,  they  can  have  no  particular  interest  in  ascer- 
taining the  import  of  the  transaction,  or  the  relation  of 
baptized  children  to  the  church  of  Christ. 

It  has  been  observed,  in  a  former  part  of  this  work, 
that  baptism,  like-circumcision,  is  both  a  sign  and  a  seal* 
As  a  sign  it  is  significant  of  important  truths.  As  a  seal, 
it  is  connected  with  a  covenant,  involving  duties  to  be 
performed,  'and  promising  important  blessings.  This  is 
true  of  baptism  generally,;  and  it  is  equally  true  of  bap- 
tism when  applied  to  children. 

It  will  be  necessary"  to  contemplate  infant  baptism  in 
the  twofold  view  which  has  been  here  presented. 

And,  first,  as  a  sign.  What  is  signified  in  the  baptism 
of  children  ?  What  facts,  what  truths,  is  the  ordinance 
calculated  to  teach  and  impress  f 

I.  It  plainly  teaches  that  infants  are  moral  beings, 
and  capabre  of  receiving  spiritual  blessings. — Some  there 
are,  who  regard  infants  as  mere  animals,  without  intel- 
lectual immortal  souls,  and  having  no  moral  capacities 
more  than  the  brutes.  But  if  infants  are  without  intel- 
lectual and  moral  capacities,  without  souls ;  why  are  they 

*  "  He  (Abraham)  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith,"  &c.  Rom.  iv.  1J.  Lightfoot  says,  that  the  Je\vs*have 
always  considered  Mrcumc'ision  as  both  a  sign  and  a  seal ;  and  that  when 
in  the  act  of  circumcising  a  child,  the  administrator  was  instructed' to  say, 
"  Blessed  be  he  who  hath  sanctified  you,  beloved  from  the  womb,  and  hath 
placed  the  sign  in  your  flesh,  and  hath  sealed  our  sons  with  the  seal  of  his 
holy  covenant."     Horae  Hebraicae  on  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

The  Christian  Fathers  were  accustomed  to  represent  baptism  as  a  seal 
Hernias,  speaking  of  "  the  seal  of  the  Son  of  God,"  says,  (illud  autem  si- 
gillum  aqua  est)  "  but  that  seal  is  water."  Gregory  Nazianzen,  reproving 
a  mother  for  delaying  to  baptize  her  child,  says:  "  Thou  art  afraid  of  giving 
him  the  seal."     Wall's  Hist,  of  In.  Baptism,  Part  i.  Chapters  1  and  11. 


118  t    IMPORT,    DESIGN,    AND    USES 

•baptized  1  What  propriety  in  baptizing  a  mere  animal  1 
And  for  such  an  application  of  the  ordinance,  what  mean- 
ing or  reason  could  be  assigned  ? 

When  our  Saviour  was  upon  earth,  little  children  were 
brought  to  him  that  they  might  receive  his  blessing.  But 
can  we  suppose  that  he  would  have  suffered  mere  animals 
to  be  brought  to  him  in  this  way  ?  Would  he  have  lajd 
his  hands  on  little  animals  without  souls,  and  prayed  over 
them,  and  pronounced  them  blessed,  and  said  that  "  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God  1" — It  is  certain  from  the 
transaction  here  referred  to,  that  infants  have  immortal 
souls  ; — that  they  are  moral  beings,  capable  of  receiving 
spiritual  blessings,  and  are  to  be  regarded  and  treated  in 
this  light.  And  whenever  we  see  a  child  presented  for 
baptism,  we  have  a  visible  manifestation  of  this  interest- 
ing truth.  God  is  here  virtually  assuring  us,  that  in  the 
breast  of  the  seemingly  unconscious  infant  there  is  a 
flame  lighted  up  which  is  to  burn  forever.  He  is  assur- 
ing us,  that  the  little  subject  of  baptism,  though  at  pres- 
ent feeble  and  helpless,  is  capable,  in  the  progress  of  its 
being,  of  unbounded  attainments  in  holiness  -and  bliss ; 
and  is  capable  even  now,  of  being  brought  into  a  cove- 
nant relation  to  God,  and  becoming  an  heir  of.  eternal 
life. 

2.  We  see  in  the  baptism  of  infants  that  they  are  der 
proved  beings. — It  is  not  necessary  here  to  go  into  any 
discussion  respecting  the  nature  of  human  depravity. 
Whether  this  attaches  to  something  in  thcconstitution  of 
the  soul,  or  only  its  exercises,  or  whether  there  is  any 
other  sense  in  which  we  may  be  said  to  be  depraved,  I 
design  not  now  to  inquire.  Evangelical  Christians  have 
always  held  to  native  as  well  as  total  depravity  ;  and  this 
melancholy  truth  is  clearly  taught  in  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants. Why  are  they  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
if  they  have  none  1  was  the  triumphant  interrogation  of 


OP    INFANT   BAPTISM,  1 19 

Augustine  to  Pelagius?  And*  the  question  is  equally  per- 
tinent, and  equally  unanswerable,  now  as  then.  The  ap- 
plication of  water  is  a  fit  and  appointed  emblem  of  purifi- 
cation. But  why  purify  that  which  is  not  defiled?  Why 
apply  baptismal  water  to  those  who  are  not  in  any  way 
the  subjects  of  mora}  pollution  ? 

Some  there  are,  who  call  infant  children  "little  inno- 
cents ;"  and  think  them  fit  subjects  of  baptism,  because 
they  are  innocent.  But  if  they  are  innocent,  they  need 
no  spiritual  cleansing,  no  purification  ;  and  why  should 
the  symbol  of  purification  be  applied  to.them? — The  lan- 
guage of  infant  baptism,  however  humiliating  to  proud 
nature,  is  too  plain  to  be  easily  perverted  or  misunder- 
stood :  '  Your  children-  are  polluted  ;  they  are  depraved 
from  their  birth ;  they  need  to  be  regenerated,  to  be  spir- 
itually.cleansed  and  purified  ;  and  it  is  on  this  account, 
and  not  because  they  are  innocent,  that  the  symbol  of 
purification  is  applied  to  them.' 

3/  The  baptism  of  infants,  like  that  of  adults,  "sets 
forth  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  sin  "  by.  the  washing 
of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This 
ordinance  does  npt  indeed  import,  that  all  those  to  whom 
it  is  applied  arc  actually  cleansed ;  but  that  there  is 
cleansing  for  them  in  the  gospel,  and  that  this  is  to  be 
effected  through  the  special  operations  of^he  Holy  Spirit. 
"  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins."  Acts 
xxii.  16.  "Christ  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself 
for  it,  that  he  inight  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  wash- 
ing of  ivatcr  by  the  word."  Eph.  v.  25.  "  Then  will  I 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean." 
Ezek.  xxxvi.  25. 

Whenever  we  see  a  little  child  presented  for  baptism, 
we  have  a  striking  illustration  of  the  glorious  truth, 'that 
though  we  are  polluted  from  our  birth,  still  there  is 
cleansing  for  us  in  th*3  gospel.     There  is  the  "  blood  of 


120  IMPORT,    DESIGN,    AND    USES 

.  sprinkling,  which  speaketb  better  things  than  that  of 
Abel."  There  is  an  almighty  Spirit,  by  the  shedding 
forth  of  whose  influence  the  darkened  "mind  may  be  en- 
lightened, the  stubborn  will  bowed,  the  depraved  heart 
purified,  and  the  whole  soul  transformed  into  a  meetness 
for  heaven. 

4.  The 'baptism  of  an  infant  is  calculated  to  impress 
on  all  who  witness  it,  that  the  cleansing,  the  healing,  and 
salvation  of  the  gospel  are  entirely  gratuitous.  In  the 
case  of  a  little  child,  these  blessings  must  be  gratuitous. 
What  has  he  done  to  merit  them  ?  What  can  he  do  ? 
But,  says  our  blessed  Saviour,  "  Whosoever  shall  not  re- 
ceive the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he'  shall  not 
enter  therein.1'  The  adult  person  "who  receives  the. 
kingdom,  must  receive  it  on  the  same  terms  as  the  child ; 
t— not  for  a  life  of  virtue, — not  for  his  faith;,  his'repent- 
ance,  his  obedience,  as  if  these  could  merit  any  thing 
from  God.  He  must,  as  to  the  ground  of  his  title  tc 
spiritual. blessings,  be  divested  of  every  thing. — Now  this 
is  one  of  the  essential  articles  of  gospel  truth;  one  of  the 
immutable  laws  of  Christ's  kingdom;  one  of  the  indis- 
pensable characteristics  of  his  genuine  subjects.  And 
this  truth  is  constantly  exhibited,  and  affectingly  impress- 
ed, in  infant  baptism.  Every  time- the  ordinance  is  ad- 
ministered to  a  child-,  all  who  witness  it  may  be  consid-  . 
eied  as  having  the  words  of  Christ  symbolically  repeated 
in  their  ears  :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall 
not  receive  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  a  little  child,  he 
shall  not  enter  therein.'  It  is  not  the  fault  of  the  ordi- 
nance, but  of  its  administrator  and  witnesses,  if  such  im- 
pressions are  not  made." 

5.  Infant  baptism  is  a  significant  token  of  discipleship, 
affixed  to  those  who  are  early  consecrated  to  Christ,  and 
pledged  to  him  as  his  future  followers.  "  All  societies 
need  some   mark  of  distinction,  by  which  the   members 


OF    INFANT  BAPTISM.  121 

shall  be  known  to  each  other ;  so  that  each  individual 
shall  feel,  that  he  is  himself  required,  and  may  justly  re- 
quire others,  to  perform  the  duties  incumbent  on  him, 
and  them,  as  members  of  the  fraternity.  This  sign  ought 
to  be  publicly  known,  to  be  definite,  unequivocal,  solemn, 
significant,  established  by  authority,  and  acknowledg- 
ed by  all  the  members.  The  power  of  such  a  sign,  to 
unite  the  members  in  affection,  in  a  common  interest, 
and  in  corresponding  pursuits,  is  very  great."  Now  the 
sign  of  "discipleship  in  the  school  of  Christ  is  baptism  : 
and  our  gracions  Master  has  provided,  that  it  shall  be 
affixed,  not  only  to  his  actual  followers,  but  to  their  chil- 
dren. *He  has  required  that  little  children  should  be 
brought  to  him  for  his  blessing,  committed  to  his  guid- 
ance, and  pledged  and  devoted  to  his  care  and  service  ; 
and  that  the  token  of  discipleship  should  be  placed  upon 
them.  In  this  view,  what  an  interesting  spectacle  is  the 
baptism  of  a  child  !  A  little  immortal,  just  placed  in  the 
hands  of  its  earthly  guardians,  is  publicly  resigned  back 
to  the  guardianship  of  Christ ;  and  ho  is  represented  as 
taking  it  into  a  covenant  relation  to  himself,  and  fixing 
upon  it  the  token  of  his  faithfulness  and  love  ' 

Having  thus  contemplated  infant  baptism  as  a  sign, 
and  glanced  at  some. of  the  great  truths  which  it  is  fitted 
to  teach  and  impress  ;  let  us,  secondly,  consider  it  as  a  seal. 

A  seal  is  an  appendage  to  a  covenant;  and  implies  the 
existence  of  a  covenant.*  Baptism,  in  the  case  of  an 
adult,  is  the  seal  of  a  covenant  between  God  and  the  per- 
son receiving  it.  It  seals  his  engagements  to  be  the 
Lord's,  and  seals  to. him  the  divine  promises  of  justifica- 
tion and  salvation. 
* 

*  In  the  word  seal,  as  here  used,  and  as.  used   by  the  Apostle,  Rom.  iv. 
11;  there  is  an  allusion,  says  Professor  Stuart,  e'  to  the  practice  of  confirm- 
ing written  instruments  (contracts  or  covenants)  by  seals  placed  on  them  in 
token  of  ratification."    Comment,  in  loc. 
11 


122 


IMPORT,  DESIGN,  AND  USES 


Baptism,  in  the  case  of  an  infant,  is  not  the  seal  of  a 
covenant  between  God  and  the  infant ;  for  the  infant  is 
incapable  of  personally  entering  into  covenant,  or  of  en- 
gaging in  any  covenant  transaction  ; — but  baptism,  in 
this  case,  is  the  seal  of  a  covenant  bctioeen  God  and  the 
parent,  respecting  the  child. 

If  we  look  into  the  Bible,  we  shall  find  this  covenant, 
in  both  parts  of  it ; — its  promises,  and  its  requisitions. 
It  is  in  fact  no  other  than  the  covenant  of  the  church — the 
covenant  with  Abraham.  God  promises  Abraham,  in  the 
seventeenth  chapter  of  Genesis,  "  I  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee, 
to  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed,  after  ihee."^  We 
find  similar  promises  in  every  part  of  the  Bible.  "  I  will 
pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon 
thine  offspring."  "  They  are  the  seed  of  the  blessed  of 
the  Lord,  and  their  offspring  with  them."  "Is.  xliv.  3 ; 
Ixv.  23.  "-The  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your  children." 
Acts  ii.  39. 

It  is  indubitable,  from  these  passages,  that  the  promises 
of  the  covenant  extend  to  the  children  of  believers.  They 
extend  to  them  as  truly  as  to  their  parents.  God  prom- 
ises to  be  the  God  of  the  one,  as  really  as  of  the  other. 

It  will  be  observed,  however,  tha.t  these  are  covenant 
promises,  and  are  connected  with  requirements  to  be  ful- 
filled on  the  other  part.  There  are  requirements  for  the 
believer  to  fulfil  in  respect  to  himself,  or  he  is  entitled  to 
no  promise.  He  must  endure  to  the  end,  or  he  has  no 
promise  of  salvation.  He  must  be  faithful  unto  death,  or 
he  has  no  promise  of  a  crown  of  life.  . 

So  there  are  requirements  for  the  believing  parent  to 
fulfil  in  respect  to  his  children,  or  he  is  entitled  to  no 
promise  for  them.  "  Walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  per- 
fect,   and  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between 

me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  to  be  a  God  unto 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  123 

thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  "  I  know.  Abraham, 
that  he  will  command  his  children  and  his  household  after 
him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  jus- 
tice and  judgment."  "  Know,  therefore,  that  the  Lord 
thy  God  is  the  faithful  God,  keepjng  covenant  and  mercy 
trith  them  that  love  him  and  keep  his  commandments,  to  a 
thousand  generations."  "  When  thou  shalt  return  unto 
the  Lord  thy  God,  and  shalt  obey  his  voice,  according  to 

all  that  1  command  thee  this  day \,\  the  Lord  thy 

God  shalt  circumcise  thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy 
seed."  "  He  established  a  testimony  in  Jacob,  and  ap- 
pointed a  law  in  Israel,  which  he  commanded  our  fathers 
that  they  should  make  them  known  to  their  children,  .... 
....  that  (hey  might  set  their  hope  in  God,  and  not  for- 
get the  works  of  God,  but  keep  his  commandments." 
"  The  mercy  of  the  Lord  is  from  everlasting  to  everlast- 
ing upon  them  that  fear  him,  and  his  righteousness  unto 
children's  children,  to  such  as  keep  his  covenant,  and  to 
those  that  remember  his  commandments  to  do  them." 
"  The  generation  of  the  upright  shall  be  blessed."  "The 
just  man  walkcth  in  his  integrity;  and  his  children  are 
blessed  after  him."  "  Train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he 
should  go,  and  when  he  is  old,  he  will  not  depart  from 
it."* 

From  these  passages,  out  of  the  many  which  might  be 
quoted,  the  import  of  the  covenant  may  be  gathered.  God 
promises  to  be  the  God  of  believers,  if  they  will  be  faith- 
ful to  themselves;  and  he  promises  to  be  the  God  of  their 
"children,  if  they -will  be  faithful  to  them.  If  they  will 
walk  before  him  and  be  perfect,  he  promises  to  establish 
his  covenant  with  them,  to  be  a  God  to  them  and  to  their 
seed.  If  they  will  command  their  children  and  their 
households  after  them,  he  promises  that  they  shall   k^ep 

*  Gen.  xvii.  1,7;  xviii.  19.     Deut.  vii.  9;  xxx.  6.     Ps.  lxxviii.  5,  7;  ciii. 
17,  18  ;  cxii.  2.    Prov.  xx.  7  j  xxii.  C. 


124  IMPORT,    DESIGN,    AND     USES 

the  way  of  the  Lord  to  do  justice  and  judgment.  If 
they  and  their  posterity  will  continue  in  his  love,  he 
promises  that  his  mercy  shall  descend  from  parents  to 
children,  even  to  a  thousand  generations.  If  they  will 
return  unto  the  Lord  and  obey  his  voice,  according  to  all 
that  he  commands  them ;  he  promises  to  circumcise  the 
heart  of  their  seed,  that  they  may  love  him  with  all  the 
heart.  If  they  will  make  known  unto  their  children  the 
praises  of  thejLord,  and  his  strength,  and  the  wonderful 
works  that  he  has  done,  he  promises  that  they  shall  set 
their  hope  in  God,  and  not  forget  the  works  of  God,  but 
keep  his  commandments.  If  they  will  keep  his  cove- 
nant, and  remember  his  commandments  to  do  them,  he 
promises  that  his  righteousness  shall  descend  to  their 
children's  children.  If  they  will  sustain  consistently  the 
character  of  the  upright,  their  generation  shall  be  bless- 
ed. If  they  will  be  just  and  walk  in  their  integrity,  their 
children  shall  be  blessed  after  them.  If  they  will  train 
them  up  in  the  way  they  should  go,  when  the}-  are  old 
they  will  not  depart  from  it.  Or  to  sum  up  these  vari- 
ous Scriptural  representations, -if  covenanting  parents  ivill 
be  faithful  to  their  children,  and  bring  the/it  tip  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord;  he  promises  to  be- 
stow upon  them  converting  grace,  and  to  be  their  God  and 
portion  in  this  world  and  forever. 

Such  is  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  covenant  of  the 
church  in  respect  to  children ; — a  meaning,  not  put  upon 
it  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  a  favorite  hypothesis,  but 
shining  forth  from  all  the  Scriptures  relating  to  the  sub* 
ject.  When  the  believing  parent  enters  into-this  cove- 
nant, he  engages  to  be  faithful  to  his  children,  and  seals 
the  engagement  in  their  baptism.    • 

£5uch,  then,  is  the  import  of  infant  baptism,  as  a  seal. 
It  is  the  seal  of  a  covenant  between  God  and  the  parent. 
It  is  a  visible  confirmation  of  this  covenant  by  both  the 
parties  concerned   in   it.     God  virtually  and  most  gra- 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  125 

ciously  addresses  the  parent  in  this  transaction,  and  says, 
*  I  will  be  a  God  to  your  child,  if  you  will  be  faithful  to 
it.'  And  the  parent  responds,  '  I  engage  to  be  faithful 
to  the  child.  I  here  publicly  give  it  up  to  thee,  and 
promise  to  train  it  up  for  thee.' 

From  the  view  here  taken,  the  relation  of  the  baptized 
infant  to  the  church  is  very  obvious.  It  is  not,  indeed,  at 
present,  an  actual  church  member:  Still,  it  holds  an  im- 
portant place  in  the  covenant  of  the  church.  Both  the 
promises  and  requisitions  of  the  covenant  have  respect  to 
it.  The  parent  consecrates  the  child  to  Christ,  and 
promises  to  train  it  up  for  him  according  to  covenant. 
And  God  says,  '-This  do,  and  your  child  shall  live.-  This 
do,  and  your  child  is  secured  to  Christ  and  the  church 
forever.' 

It  may  be  asked  here,  whether  the  covenant  of  the 
church  in  respect  to  children,  demands  entire  fidelity  of 
the  parent;  whether  it  is  broken  by  every  instance  of  im- 
proper treatment,  by  every  failure  in  point  of  duty  ? — 
And  in  reply,  I  would  ask,  whether  God  does  not  de- 
mand entire  fidelity  in  all  his  covenant  dealings  with 
men?  In  what  covenant  that  he  has  ever '  made  with 
them  has  he  left  them  at  liberty  to  sin  ?  Could  Abraham 
fall  into  sin,  and  not  violate  that  covenant  in  which  it 
was  said,  '  Walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  perfect?'  When- 
ever the  children  of  Israel  fell  into  sin,  were  they  not 
charged  with  violating  covenant  engagements?  And  is 
it  not  an  aggravation  of  all  the  sins  of  God's  people  now, 
that  they  are  offences,  not  only  against  the  law  of  God,  . 
but  against  his  covenant? 

It  is  one  thing,  however,  to  come  short  of  the  entire 
requisitions  of  a  covenant,  and  quite  another,  so  to  break 
it  and  trifle  with  it,  as  to  lose  all  interest  in  its  promised 
blessings.  The  former  is  often  done  by  the  professing 
people  of  God  ;  the  latter,  it  may  be  hoped,  is  of  rare  o<> 
*11 


126  IMPORT,    DESIGN,    AND     USES 

currence.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  Abraham  was  en- 
tirely perfect  with  his  children — that  he  performed  all 
his  duty  towards  them.  Yet  he  obtained  a  promise  in 
respect  to  them,  that  they  should  "  keep  the  way  of  the 
Lord  to  do  justice  and  judgment."  The  Israelites  often 
failed  of  fulfilling  the  demands  of  God's  covenant  with 
them  ;  yet  it  was  long  before  they  lost  all  interest  in  the 
covenant,  and  were  finally  rejected.  And  how  is  it  with 
believers  under  the  gospel?  They  are  not  perfect.  They 
are  often  chargeable  with  sin.  Still,  they  do  not,  with 
every  sin,  lose  all  interest  in  the  covenant  of  grace;  If 
they  "  repent  of  their  sins,  and  turn  to  God,  and  do 
works  meet  for  repentance ;"  he  graciously  returns  to 
them,  and  permits  them  to  confide  in  his  love. 

Without  doubt,  the  covenant,  into  which  the  believing 
parent  enters  respecting  his  children,  requires  him  to  be 
faithful  to  them.  It  can  require  no  less.  Neither  is  it 
likely  that  any  parent  in  this  life  comes  up  to  the  full  im- 
port of  this  requisition.  The  most  watchful  parent  often 
sins,  and  fails  of  doing  his  whole  duty  to  his  children. 
Still,  he  may  not  so  fail,  and  trifle  with  the  obligations  of 
the  covenant,  as  to  forfeit  all  interest  in  its  blessings.  If 
he  is  sensible  of  his  failures,  and  mourns  over  them,  and 
strives  not  to  repeat  them,  and  returns  with  new  zeal  to 
the  performance  of  duty ;  God  will  not  at  once  forsake 
him,- and  cut  him  off  from  his  interest  in  the  promises. 
The  whole  history  of  God's  covenant  dealings  with  men 
forbids  such  a  supposition.* — The  covenanting   parent, 

*  "  If  they  shall  confess  their  iniquity,  and  the  iniquity  of  their  fathers  .  . 
.  .  .  then  will  1  remember  my  covenant  with  Jacob,  and  also  myvovenant 
with  Isaac,  and  ah?o  my  covenant  with  Abraham  wi"  I  remember,  and  I 
will  remember  the  land."  Lev.  xxvi.  40 — 45.  ".They  provoked  him  with 
their  counsel,  and  were  brought  low  for  their  iniquity  ;  nevertheless,  he  re- 
garded their  affliction,  when  he  heard  their  cry,  and  he  remembered  for  them 
his  covenant.'!  Ps.  cvi.  43 — 45.  "  Thou  hast  despised  the  oath  in  break- 
ing the  covenant  ^nevertheless,  J  will  remember  my  covenant  ivith  thee  in 
the  days  of  thy  youth."     Ezek.  xvi.  59,  60. 


OP    INFANT    BAPTISM.  127 

having  once  failed,  may  not  be  abl«  to  demand  the  entire 
fulfilment  of  the  promises  ;  but  he  may  reasonably  Jwpc 
for  their  fulfilment,  and.  this  hope  will  be  just  in  propor- 
tion to  the  degree  of  his  penitence,  and  his  future  dili- 
gence in  the  performance  of  duty. 

It  may  be  objected  to  the  principles  established  in  the 
foregoing  pages,  that  they  make  the  salvation  of  children 
to  depend  rather  on  their  parents,  than  on  themselves ; 
and  represent  those  who  are  lost  as  condemned  for  their 
parents'  iniquity,  rather  than  their  oivn. — But  this  objec- 
tion arises  entirely  from  misapprehension.  The  piety  of 
children  I  suppose  is  connected  in  covenant  with  parent- 
al fidelity  ;  but  then,  when  they  come  to-  experience  it, 
it  is  their  own  piety,  and  they  are  rewarded  according  to 
their  own  works.  So  the  final  impenitence  and  ruin  of 
children  are  connected  in  many  ways  with  the  wicked- 
ness of  parents.  Still,  the  impenitence  of  such  children 
is  their  own,  and  they  are  punished  for  their  own  sins. 

It  may  be  further  objected,  that,  according  to  the  rep- 
resentation which  has  been  given,  the  relation  of  children 
to  the  Christian  church  is  very  different  from  their  rela- 
tion to  the  Jewish  church. — But  how  were  children  con- 
nected with  the  Jewish  church  ?  Not  by  the  possession 
of  true  holiness,  for  this  they  did  not  possess.  Neither 
by  having  entered  personally  into  the  covenant  of  the 
church;  for  they  were  incapable  in  their  infancy,  as  chil- 
dren now  are,  of  any  such  personal  transaction.  So  far 
as  the  church  under  the  former  dispensation  possessed  a 
national  character,  its  constitution  and  the  ground  of 
connexion  with  it  could  not  be  the  same  as  that  which 
prevails  under  the  gospel.  But  so  far  as  this  church  was 
properly  spiritual,  it  is  believed  that  the  relation  of  chil- 
dren to  it  did  not  differ  materially  from  that  which  now 
subsists.  I  can  conceive  of  no  ground  of  spiritual  rela- 
tion to  it,  but  that  which  has  been  explained  ; — parents, 


128  IMPORT,    DESIGN,    AND     USES 

entered  into  covenant  respecting  their  children,  and  the 
Jehovah  of  Israel  promised,  on  condition  of  parental 
fidelity,  to  be  their  God.* 

The  principles  which  have  been  established  furnish 
ground  for  several  important  conclusions. 

1.  From  what  has  been  said  of  infant  baptism,  as  a 
seal,  it  appears  that  it  is  most  wisely  adapted  to  secure 
the  religious  education  and  consequent  conversion  of  the 
children  of  believing  parents.  This  is,  -yideed,  the  .great 
object  and  end  of  infant  baptism  ;  .and  the  rite,  as  it  has 
been  explained,  is  fitted  obviously,  in  the  best  manner,  to 
secure  it. 

It  is  fitted  to  do  this,  by  reminding  covenanting  parents 
o.f  their  duty  to  their  children.  Every  time  they  look 
upon  them,  and  behold  the  seal  of  God  upon  their  fore- 
heads, they  are  reminded  of  the  engagements  into  which 
they  have  entered,  and  the  duties  which  they  have  cove- 
nanted to  perform. 

Infant  baptism  is  also  fitted  to  quicken  and  strengthen 
parents  in  the  performance  of  their  duties.  In  this  re- 
spect, it  is  not  unlike  a  public  profession  of  religion.  A 
public  profession  imposes  no  new  duties.  The  same  re- 
ligious duties,  in  general,  are  binding  on  all  men,  wheth- 
er they  make  a  profession  or  not.  But  a  profession  furn- 
ishes ncio  inducements  to  the  performance  of  duty,  and 
new  strength  with  which  to  resist  the  temptations  to  neg- 
lect it.  So  infant  baptism  imposes  no  new  duties.  All 
parents  are  bound  to  be  faithful  to  their  children,  whether 
they  baptize  them  or  not.  But  by  a  public  recognition  of 
parental  duties,  and  a  solemn,  sealed  engagement  to  per- 
form these  duties,  infant  baptism  greatly  increases  the 
motives  in  favor  of  their  performance,  and  furnishes  addi- 
tional security  that  they  will  be  performed. 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  K. 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  129 

The  promises  of  God,  too,  will  be  a  great  encourage- 
ment to  parents,  in  the  difficult  and  responsible  work  of 
training  up  their  children.  Was  it  not  an  encourage- 
ment to  Abraham,  that  God  had  promised  to  be  the  God 
of  his  sa:d?  And  should  it  rfot  afford  encouragement  to 
the  Christian  parent,  that  this  promise  is  still  to  him,  and 
to  his  children  ?  As  he  looks  upon  his  beloved  offspring, 
with  an  ever  watchful  anxiety  for  their  spiritual  good, 
will  it  not  encourage  and  comfort  him,  that  he  may  re- 
gard them  as  already  the  subjects  of  promise,  and  may 
humbly  plead  the  provisions  of  God's  gracious  covenant 
on  their  behalf? 

2.  It  appears  from  what  has  been  said,- that  there  is  a 
propriety  in  administering  baptism,  not 'only  to  the  natu- 
ral children  of  believing  parents,  but  to  such  as  have 
been  adopted  by  them,  and  with  whose  education  they 
are  entrusted.  Infant  baptism  is  the  seal  of  a  covenant, 
or  of  mutual  en -rag emails,  entered  into  by  God  and  the 
parent  respecting  the  child.  The  engagement  of  the  pa- 
rent is  in  substance  this:  '  I  will,  train  up  this  child  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.' 

It  is  plain,  that  the  parent  may  properly  enter  into  such 
an  engagement  respecting  his  own  children  ;  and  it  is 
equally  plain  that  he  may  enter  into  a  like  engagement  in 
respect  to  any  child  or  children  whom  he  has  adopted,  or 
with  whose  education  he  is  entrusted.  With  the  utmost 
propriety,  therefore,  he  may  present  such  child  or  chil- 
dren before  God  and  say,  '  Here  are  the  little  ones  whom 
thou,  in  thy  righteous  providence,  hast  committed  to  my 
care.  •  I  desire  to  yield  them  up  to  thee,  and  promise  to 
train  them  up  for  thee.  I  desire  to  seal  this  promise  in 
their  baptism,  and  thus  take  hold  of  thy  gracious  cove- 
nant on  their  behalf.' 

3.  It  may  be  inferred  from  the  principles  which  have 
been  established,  that  children  are  not  entitled  to  baptism 


130  IMPORT,    DESIGN,    AND    USES 

on  their  parent's  account  after  they  have  passed  the  peri- 
od of  their  minority.  As  parents  cannot  with  propriety 
engage  to  train  up  their  children'  for  God,  when  they  are 
already  trained  up ;  so  they  cannot  with  propriety  apply 
to  them  the  seal  of  such  an  engagement.  The  period 
when  children  cease  to  be  entitled  to  baptism  on  the  ac- 
count of  their  parents,  is  the  period  when  they  pass  from 
under  the  control  of  their  parents,  and  are  no  longer  sub- 
ject to  their  discipline  and  care. 

4.  From  the  view  we  have  taken,  it  appears  that  the 
baptism  of  children  furnishes  no  reason  for  their  admission 
to  the  communion  of  the  church,  without  a  credible  profes- 
sion of  piety. — In  the  opinion  of  some,  when  baptized  chil- 
dren arrive  at  a  certain  age,  and  have  passed  what  may  be 
termed  their  religious  minority,  they  are  entitled,  on  the 
mere  ground  of  their  baptism,  to  the  communion  of  the 
church.  And  if,  at  this  or  at  any  subsequent  period,  they 
request  admission  to  communion  ;  unless  their  lives  are 
scandalously  immoral,  the  church,  it  is  said,  have  no  right 
to  refuse  them.  But  opinions  such  as  these  are  obviously  the 
result  of  incorrect  notions  respecting  the  import  of  infant 
baptism,  and  the  relation  which  it  establishes  between  the 
child  and  the  church.  Baptism  alone  does  not  qualify  any 
person  for  communion  ;  nor  will  the  baptized  child,  on  the 
mere  ground  of  his  baptism,  be  at  all  more  fitted,  at  any  peri- 
od of  life,  for  the  holy  ordinance  of  the  supper.  Infant  bap- 
tism is  the  seal  of  a  covenant,  in  which  the  child  ispromi- 
sed  to  the  church.  It  seals  engagements,  which  (if  fulfilled) 
render  it  certain,  that  he  will  at  some  period  be  qualified 
for  communion  at  the  Lord's  table.  But  how  qualified  1 
— Not  by  having  arrived  at  a  certain  age,  but  by  becom- 
ing a  subject  of  converting  grace.  God  promises  his  peo- 
ple, if  they  will  give  up  their  children  to  him,  and  train 
them  up  for  him,  that  he  will  be  their  God  and  portion  ; 
— he  will  prepare  them  for  his  church  on  earth,  and  for 


.  OP    INFANT    BAPTISM.  131 

his  kingdom  in  heaven  ;  and  when  this  promise  begins 
to  be  fulfilled,  and  baptized  children  begin  to  believe  with 
the  heart  and  confess- with  the  mouth  the  religion  of  the 
Son  of  God,  then,  and  not  before,  may  they  with  proprie- 
ty become  partakers  of  the  memorials  of  his  death. 

5.  It  may  be  inferred  from  what  has  been  said,  that  bap- 
tized children  are  not  subject  directly  to  the  discipline  of 
the  church. — Some  have  supposed  that,  if  the  conduct  of 
those  who  have  been  baptized  becomes  irregular,  or  if 
they  long  neglect  to  profess  religion,  the  church  is  bound 
to  interfere,  and  make  them  the  subjects  of  direct  eccle- 
siastical labor  and  discipline.  But  the  view  we  have 
taken  of  the  connexion  between  such  children  and  the 
church,  furnishes  no  ground  for  such  a  procedure. 

The  pious  in  our  churches  will,  of  course,  feel  a  pecu- 
liar solicitude  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  those  who  have 
been  baptized.  They  will  make  frequent  mention  of 
them  in  their  prayers;  and  if  individuals  are  disposed  to 
associate  for  the  purpose  of  united  prayer  in  regard  to  this 
object,  and  to  strengthen  one  another's  hands  in  the  dif- 
ficult work  of  training  up  their  children  ;  or  if  parents 
are  disposed  to  assemble  their  children  with  the  church, 
or  to  seek  the  advice  and  praye'rs  of  the  church, — to 
measures  such  as  these  there  can  be  no  objection.  On 
the  contrary,  they  may  be  commendable  and  useful. — But 
all  this  comes  far  short  of  making  baptized  children  the 
subjects  of  direct  church  discipline  and  censure.  As 
such  children  have  never  personally  entered' into  the  cov- 
enant of  the  church,  they  have  never  placed  themselves 
under  its  discipline.  Nor  have  their  parents  placed 
them  there.  They  have  covenanted  with  God,  and  with 
with  their  brethren,  that  they  would  be  faithful  to  their 
children,  and  train  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admoni- 
tion of  the  Lord  ;  but  they  have  never  placed  them  di- 


132  IMPORT,    DESIGN,     AND    CSRS 

rectly  under  the  watch  and  care  of  the  church.     Hence, 
the  church  have  no  right  directly  to  interfere. 

It  is  the  right  of  the  churches,  ahd  it  is  their  duty,  to 
watch  over  covenanting  parents — to  watch  over  them  in 
respect  to  the  manner  in  which  they  train  up  their  chil- 
dren— and,  in  case  of  palpable  default  or  negligence,  to 
admonish,  censure,  or  exclude,  as  the  case  may  require. 
In  this  indirect  manner,'  churches  may  extend  their 
supervision  to  the  conduct  of  baptized  children.  But  to 
do  more  than  this;  to  interfere  with  the  government  of 
families;  and  to  endeavor,  on  their  own  responsibility, 
and  by  a  direct  application  of  discipline,  to  deal  with  and 
reclaim  refractory  children,  it  is  believed  they  have  no 
authority ;  and  that  to  attempt  it  might  be  attended  with 
the  worst  of  consequences. 

The  opinion  has  been  advanced,  that  when  baptized 
children  arrive  at  a  certain  age,  if  they  neglect  a  public 
profession  of  religion,  they  ought  to  be  admonished  by 
the  church  ;.and  if  not  brought  to  a  satisfactory  perform- 
ance of  duty,  they  ought  to  be  publicly  disowned  and  re- 
jected. But'such  a  procedure  I  must  think  both  inexpe- 
dient and  unwarranted.  Baptized  children  are,  indeed, 
connected  with  the  church.  Its  covenant  has  respect  to 
them;  and  God  has  promised,  on  condition  of  parental 
fidelity,  that  they  shall  one  day  be  prepared  for  all  the  or- 
dinances of  his  kingdom.  But  he  has  nowhere  revealed 
at  what  period  this  promise  shall  be  fulfilled.  lie  may, 
in  righteous  judgment,  delay  it  long.  Or  if  the  condi- 
tion on.  which  it  is  suspended  is  perseveringly  trifled  with, 
he  may  never  fulfil  it.  It  is  impossible  for  the  church  to 
ascertain  his  designs,  and  it  rather  becomes  them  to  wait 
upon  him,  in  a  humble  and  prayerful  use  of  means,  than 
rashly  to  disown  and  cast  off  those  who  are  connected 
with  them  by  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

6.   It  is  a  recommendation  of  the  views  here  exhibited, 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  133 

that  they  open  a  plain,  safe  and  easy  path  in  respect  to 
the  treatment  of  baptized  children.  This  cannot  "be  said 
of  all  the  'plausible  theories  which  have  been  advanced  in 
relation  to  this  subject.  Some  have  led  confessedly  to 
such  a  mode  of  treatment  as  their  abettors  would  not  have 
•dared  to  put  in  practice  ;  and  which,  if  it  had  been  put  in 
practice,  must  have  produced  unhappy  results.  But  the 
views  here  advocated  leave  children,  where  God  and  na- 
ture designed  they  should  be  left,  under  the  immediate 
direction  and  control  of  parents  ;  while  they  bind  parents, 
by  motives  the  most  powerful  and  engagements  the  most 
solemn,  to  do  their  duty.  The  parent  may  seek  direction 
and  aid  from  his  brethren  individually,  or  from  the  church 
as  a  body, -or-  from  any  other  source  whence  they  can  be 
obtained  ;•  but  the  care  and  control  are  primarily  his. 
And  he  is  in  a  sense  responsible  to  God  and  the  church, 
for  the  good  education  and  consequent  conversion  of  those 
entrusted  to  his  hands. 

7.  From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that  infant 
baptism  is  not  an  unmeaning  ceremony,  but  a  very  sig- 
nificant and  important  ordinance. — Those  who  reject  this 
ordinance  usually  think  and  speak  of  it  as  a  thing  of  jid 
value.  "  It  is  a  cause  that  produces  no  effect ;  a  means 
connected  with  no  end  ;  a  cJoud  that  affords  no  rain  ;  a 
tree  that  yields  no  fruit."*. 

But  in  view  of  what  has  been  said,  I  must  be  allowed 
to  ask,  Is  this  true?  Is  infant  baptism  of  no  benefit  as  a 
sign?  Is  it  not  clearly  significant  of  some  of  the  most 
important  spiritual  "  truths  ?"  Where  can  we  so  plainly 
read,  that  toe  are  morally  polluted  beings  from  our  birth  ; 
that  we  need  cleansing ;  that  there-  is  cleansing  for  us 
in  the  gospel;  and  that  this  (if  bestowed  at  all)  must  come 
in  a  way  of  mere  grace, — as  in  infant  baptism  1  And  is 
it  of  no  benefit  to  the  church  and  world,  that  Christ  has 

*  Bin's  Strictures,  p.  10. 

12 


134  IMPORT,    DESIGN,    AND    USES 

appointed  a  standing  symbol,  an  ordinance,  by  which 
these,  and  the  kindred  important  truths,  are  shadowed 
forth  ?  Was  it  of  no  benefit  to  the  church  in  the  days  of 
Pelagius,  that  she  could  appeal  triumphantly  to  infant 
baptism,  in  opposition  to  the  errors  which  then  were 
broached  ?  Is  it  of  no  advantage  to  the  church,  that  she 
still  retains  the  same  argument? 

But  infant  baptism  is  full  of  meaning  and  interest,  not 
only  as  a  sign,  but  as  a  seal.  It  is  the  seal  of  a  solemn 
covenant  between  God  and  the  parent.  It  binds  the  pa- 
rent, by  everything  sacred,  to  be  mindful  of  the  spiritual 
interests  of  his  children,  and  to  do  all  in  his  power  to 
train  them  up  for  heaven  ;  and  seals  the  consequent  gra- 
cious promise,  that  God  will  be  their  portion  forever. 
And  now  is  not  a  covenant,  so  framed  and  sealed,  calcu- 
lated to  have  an  important  influence  ?  Will  not  those  pa- 
rents who  have  sincerely  entered  into- it  be  more  likely 
(other  things  being  equal)  to  engage,  with  persevering 
diligence,  in  the  important  work  of  religious  education, 
than  those  who  have  made  no  such  engagements?*  And 
will  not  God  remember  his  covenant,  and  bless  their  la- 
bors, and  cause  the  fruits  of  them  to  appear  in  their  chil- 
dren ? 

I  am  far  from  considering  infant  baptism  as  a  saving 
ordinance,  or  from  attaching  to  it  any  mysterious  efficacy 
in  the  concern  of  salvation  ;  but  if  it  stands  connected 
with  the  religious  education  of  children,  and  brings  them 
within  the  scope  of  the  promises,  in  the  manner  we  have 
seen  ;  then  baptized  children  maybe  expected  to  enjoy  pri- 
vileges beyond  others,  and  will  be  more  likely  to  become 
the  objects  of  the  divine  favor  and  blessing.  And  this 
view  of  the  case,  1'  am  confident  is  justified  by  facts.  The 
church  has  been  in  a  great  measure  perpetuated  in  the 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  L. 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  135 

line  of  children  who  have  been  religiously  educated,  and 
mostly  in  the  line  of  those  who  have  been  circumcised,  or 
baptized.  A  large  proportion  of  those  who  have  been  con- 
verted and  gathered  into  the  churches  in  our  own  times,  i 
has  been  from  among  this  class ;  and  so  it  has  been  in  all 
former  periods.  And  when  we  consider  the  impyt  of  in- 
fant baptism,  the  promises  sealed  by  it,  and  the  influence 
which  it  ought  to  have  on  those  parents  who  practice  it; 
there  is.  nothing  strange  in  this.  The  wonder  rather  is, 
that  such  parents  have  not  been  more  mindful  of  their 
covenant,  and  more  devoted  Jo  the  spiritual  interests  of 
their  children,— 'that  so  the  value  of  the  rite  in  question 
mrght  be  more  manifest,  and  the  faithfulness  of  God  in 
respect  to  it  might  more  illustriously  appear. 

8.  In  vie\^of  what  has  been  said,  the  responsibility  of 
parents,  who  have  given  up  their  children  to  God  in  bap- 
tism, is  very  great.  The  charge  committed  to-them  is 
immense — the  charge  of  souls.  To  thejni  it  is  entrusted, 
in  great  measure,  to  form  the  characters  and  decide  the 
destinies  of  their  children,  for  time  and  eternity. 

When  you  presented- your  children  for  baptism,  Chris- 
tian parents,  you  wore  regarded,*not  only  as  giving  them 
to  God,  but  as  promising  to  train  them  up  for  him.  When 
your  covenant  respecting  th'etn  was  sealed  in  baptismal 
water,  in  the  name  of  the  Fatlfer,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
you  were  understood  as  binding  yourselves,  by  the  most 
solemn  obligations,  to  make  their  conversion  and  final 
salvation  the  leading  object  of  your  lives.  Remember, 
then,  that  this  is  a  subject  in  regard  to  which  you  stand 
sacredly  pledged.  The  vows  of  God  are  upon  you,  and 
you  cannot  go  back.  And  why  should  you  desire  to  go 
back  ?  Have  you  bound  yourselves  to. do  more  than  your 
duty— more  than  the  honor  of  God,  and  your  own  happi- 
ness, and  the  best  interests  of  your  children  demand  ? 
No,  Christian  parent,  you  eannot  think  so.  "  The  cove- 
nant into  which  you  have  entered  is  perfect.  "Its  require- 


136  IMPORT,    DESIGN,    AND    DSES 

ments  are  strict,  but,  its  promises  are  precious — too  pre- 
cious to  be  easily  sacrificed  and  lost.  Will  you  not, 
then,  endeavor  to  be"  faithful  ?  A  thousand  considera- 
tions are  pressing  iipon  you  to  be  faithful.  If  you  can 
consent  to  trifle  with  your  own  souls,  do  hot  trifle  with 
the  soul*  of  those  little  immortal  beings  entrusted  to  your 
eare.  Neglect  not  to  "feed  daily,  with  oil  from  the  sanc- 
tuary,"those  lights  lighted  for  eternity,  that  they  may* burn 
with  a  pure  and  lovely  radiance. befqre  the  throne  above." 
Neglect  not  to  "  cherish  and  cultivate  those  tender  plants 
pf  immortality,  bringing  dewn  upon  them  by  prayer  the 
dews  and  the  rains. of  heaven,  that  they  may  flourish  and 
bear  fruit  forever  in  the  Paradise  of  God." 

But  you  feel,  perhaps,  that  you  have  been  already  un- 
faithful. On  a  review  of  the  past,  you  see  Tittle  else  but 
imperfection.  Your  covenant  has  been  often  broken,  and 
your  obligations  have  been  violated. — And  what  are  ypur 
feelings,  Christian  parent,  in  view  of  this  dark  picture? 
Do  you  sincerely 'mourn  over  it?  Do  you  feel  disposed 
to  humble  yourself  before  God,  and  confess  .your  sins, 
and  implore  forgiveness  for  the  past,  and  resolve  in  the 
strength  of  Christ  to  be  Taithful  in  time  to  come.?  Can 
you  in  this  way  return  to  God, "and  take  hold  again  of  his 
holy  covenant  ?  -If  so,  you  may  hope  that  God  will  re- 
turn to  you,  and  verify  to- you  the  promises  of  his  grace? 
You  may  hope  that  the  God. of  Abraham  will  not  refuse 
to  be  your  God,  and  that  of  your  children. — But  if  you 
feet  none  of  these  relentings  in.  view  of  past  unfaithful- 
ness; if  you  mean  still  to  neglect  duty  and  trifle,  with 
obligation,  as  you  acknowledge  you  have  done  ;  then  dark 
indeed'  is  the  prospect  before  you.  Your  broken  vows 
must  plead  against  you.  at  the  lastr  and  the  solemnities 
through  which  you  have  past  with  your  children  will  be 
worse  than  in  vain  both  to  them  and  to  you. 

This  subject  should  be  an  impressive  *  one  to  baptized 


OP    INFANT    BAPTISM.  137 

children,  especially  to  those  who  have  arrived  to  years  of 
understanding,   and   have    not  yet  given   their   hearts  to 
God.     I  shall  take  it  for   granted,  my  young  friends,  that 
your  parents  have  done  something  more  than  merely  to  offer 
you   in  baptism  ; — that  they   have   often   told  you  of  that 
solemn  hour,  when  you  werfc  publicly  consecrated  to  God, 
and  his  name  was  put  upon  you,  and  the  covenant  respect- 
ing you  was   ratified    and   sealed ; — that   they  have  kept 
this  covenant  in  mind,   and   labored,  in  accordance   with 
it,  to  train  you  up  in  a  meetness  for  heaven.     How  great, 
then,  have  been  your  privileges  !     How  great  your  con- 
sequent obligations.     And  how   great  your  sin  and  guilt, 
if  these  obligations   have  not   been   fulfilled  ! — You  may 
have   trusted   in  your  privileges,  and  felt  that   these  were 
•so  great,  that  they  could  hardly  fail  to  issue  in  your  salva- 
tion.    So  did  some   of  the   inhabitants   of  those  cities  in 
which    our    Saviour   most   frequently    preached,  and    in 
which   most  of  his  mighty   works   were  done.     But  w  hat 
said  the  benevolent  Saviour  to  these  favored  but  ungrate- 
ful cities?   ■"  Woe  unto  thee,  Chorazin  !   Woe  unto  thee, 
Bethsaida  !   for  if  the  mighty  works   which  were*  done  in 
you  had  been  done  in  Tyre  and  Sidon,  they  would   have 
repented  long   ago  in    sackcloth    and   ashes.     But  I  say 
unto  you,  it  shall  be   more  tolerable   for  Tyre  and  Sidon 
at  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  you.    And  thou  Caperna- 
um, which  art  exalted  unto  heaven,  shall  be  brought  down 
to  hell ;   for  if  the  mighty   works   which  have  been   done 
in  thee  had  been  done  in  Sodom,  it  would  have  remained 
until  this  day.     But  I  say  unto  you,  that  it  shall  be  more 
tolerable  for  the*  land  of  Sodom  in  the  day   of  judgment, 
than  for  thee."     Take  care,  my  young  friends,  how   you 
incur  these  fearful  denunciations.     Take  cape  how   you 
trifle  with  your  privileges,  lest  it  be   more  tolerable   for 
Tyre,  and   Sidon,   and   Sodom,  in   the   day  of  judgment 
than  for  you.     Resisted   light,  and  violated  obligations, 
*12 


138     '  IMPORT,    DESIGN,    AND    USES 

and  abused  privileges,  so  far  from  doing,  you  any  good, 
can  only  aggravate  your  final  condemnation.  Your  pa- 
rents, I  am  willing  to  suppose,  have  .  endeavored  to  per- 
form, their  duty  towards  you.  But  they  never  can  repent 
■ind  believe  for  you.  They  cannot  have  religion  in  your 
stead.  Every  thing  is  now  depending,  under  God,  upon 
yourselves.  "  If  thou  be  wise,'  thou  shalt  be  wise  for 
thyself;  but  if  thou  scorncst,  thou  alone  shalt  bear  it." 
Your  parents  have  committed  you  into  the  hands  of  God  ; 
be  willing  to  commit  yourselves  there.  Take  hold  of  the 
promises  for  yourselves,  and  enter  personally  into  cove- 
nant with  yOur  Maker.  Nothing  short  of  this  can  save 
you  ;  or  can  prevent  your  distinguished  privileges  from  . 
rising  up  in  the  judgment  to  condemn  you. 

I  shall  conclude  this  discussion  with  a  kw  words  to 
the  "churches.  I  have  said  that  it  is  not  the  business  of 
churches  to  interfere  with  the  government  of  families, 
and  iake  the  discipline  of  children  out  of  the  hands  of 
parents.  The  Bible  nowhere  makes  this  the  duty  of 
churche^  ;  it  would  be  an  objection  to  it,  if  it  did.*  But 
the  churches  are  not  to  infer  that  there  is  nothing  for 
them  to  do.  It  is  their  part  to  watch  .over  covenating 
parents  ;  and  to  take  notice  of  the  manner  in  which  they 
perform  their  duty  to  their  children.  If  such  parents  are 
ignorant,  they  should  be  instructed.  If  they  have  pecu- 
liar difficulties  and  trials,  their  hands  should  be  strength- 
ened and  their  hearts  encouraged.  Or  if  they  are  inex- 
cusably negligent  and  unfaithful,  they  should  be  admon- 
ished and  reclaimed,  or  else  excluded.  Their  Christian 
brethren  must  not  suffer  sin  upon  them,  and  suffer  duty 
to  be  openly  neglected,  in  regard  to  this  important  matter. 

The  churches  should  feel  a  deep  and  peculiar  interest 
in  baptized  children,  and   this  interest  should  be  mani- 

.  *  See  Appendix,  Note  M. 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  .   139 

fested  in  all  proper  ways.  Especially  should  it  be  mani-. 
fested  in  earnest  and  persevering  prayer,  that  the  God  of 
grace  would  remember  his  covenant,  have  mercy  upon 
them,  and  save  their  souls. 

This  subject  should  be  one  of  particular  interest  to  the 
churches  at  the  present  period.  They  are  expecting 
great  things  of  the  rising  generation.  They  are  expecting 
a  va'st  accession  of  members,  to  be  taken  chiefly  from 
those  now  in  the  morning  of  life.  It  is  high  time,  then, 
that  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  were  turned  to  th.e  children  ,- 
and  that  the  hearts  of  all  professing  Christians  were  en- 
gaged to  seek  the  "salvation  of  the  young:. that,  when 
those  now  on  the  stage  are  summoned  to  leave  it,  a  gen- 
eration may  rise  up — not  only  to  call  them  blessed — but 
to  stand  in  their  lot,  and  enter  into  their  labors. 


PART  IV. 

ON  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

Those  Christians,  who  reject  infant  baptism,  and  con- 
tend for  the*  exclusive  validity  of  immersion  in  that  ordi- 
nance, have,  for  the  most  part,  confined  their  communion 
to  persons  of  their  own  persuasion,  considering  those  of 
other  denominations  as  unbaptized.  Their  practice  in 
this  respect  has  been  termed  close  or  strict  communion; 
while  the  opposite  practice  is  styled  free,  open,  or  mixed 
communion. 

1  design,  in  the  following  pages,  to  offer  some  consid- 
erations in  opposition  to  close  communion.  I  would  pre- 
mise, however,  that  I  entirely  agree  with  the  strict  or 
Calvinistic  Baptists  in  the  sentiment  that  none  but  profes- 
sed believers  in  Christ-. — who  give  creditable  evidence  of 
having  been  regenerated  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit — are  entitled  to  communion  at  the  sacred  supper. 
Those  only  who  give  evidence  of  being  the  children  of 
God  are  entitled  to  a  seat  at  their  Father's  table.  Those 
only  who  are  prepared  to  enjoy  real,  spiritual  commun- 
ion with  Christ  and  his  people,  are  entitled  to  receive  the 
the  emblems  of  such  communion.  "  The  cup  of  blessing 
which,  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  1  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  com- 
munion of  the  body  of  Christ?"* 

*  Hence,  in  advocating  what  is  sometimes  called  open  communion,  we 
cannot  perceive  that  we  justly  expose  ourselves  to  the  charge  of  latitxtdina- 
rianism ; — a  charge  usually  urged  in  this  connexion. 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  141 

But  while  I  am  thus  confident  in  the  pei suasion  that 
the  sacrament  of  the  supper  is  the  exclusive  property  of 
those  who  give  evidence  of  having  been  born  of  God,  I 
am  equally  confident  that  it  is  the  property  of  all  of  this 
character;  and  that  to. withhold  it,  as  many  do,  from 
multitudes  whom  they  acknowledge  to  be  true  Christians, 
is  a  proceeding  which,  however  pure  and  kind  may  be 
their  intentions,  they  are  wholly  unable  to  justify. 

1.  The  practice  of  close  communion  is,  in  the  first 
place,  unscriptural. — The.re  "were  differences  of  opinion 
in  the  apostolical  churches,  and  some  of  them  of  as  great 
importance  as  those  now  agitated  between  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists.  Such,  for  instance,  was  the  question  re- 
specting the  obligation  of  practising  circumcision,  and 
observing  the  Jewish  law.  Yet  neither  party  was  tole- 
rated in. excluding  or  denouncing  the  other.  So  far  from 
this,  they  were  expressly  exhorted  to  receive  one  another, 
on  the  ground  of  both  being  supposed  to  belong  to  Christ. 
"  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  anuther,  as  Christ  also  receiv- 
ed us,  to  the  glory  of  God."  Rom.  xv.  7.  "  Him  that  is 
weak  in  faith" — or  whom  ye  este^n  weak,  he  not  being 
able  to  see  things  in  the  same  light  with  yourselves — 
"  receive  ye,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputations."  '  Who 
art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant,  in  respect  to 
such  matters?  He  is  a  servant  of  Christ;  he  is  in  the 
faith  ;  he  is  conscientious  in  his  opinion,  as  you  are  in 
yours;  and  why  do 'you  judge  him?  To  his  own  Master 
he  standeth  or  falleth.  Let  us  not  therefore  judge  one 
another  any  more.'     See  Rom.  xiii.  1 — 13. 

It  will  be'said,  perhaps,  that  the  Apostle  is  here  speak- 
ing of  things  indifferent ;  things  not  to  be  compared  with 
the  modern  questions  respecting  baptism.  But  what  are 
we  to  understand  by  '■  things  indifferent,'  as  tins  phrase-* 
ology  is  here  used  ?  Not  things  of  no  importance,  or 
about  which  the  Apostle  had  formed   no  opinion ;    but 


142-  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

things  which  he  regarded  as  unessential  to  Christian 
character,  and  to  final  salvation ; — as  the  questions  re- 
specting baptism  confessedly  are.  Paul  certainly  had 
formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  matters  referred  to  in 
the  above  quotations,  and  he  did  consider  them  as  of  very 
considerable  importance — important  enough  frequently 
to  occupy  his  thoughts  and  his  pen  ;  but  as  he  did  not 
think  them  essential  to  Christian  character,  he  was  de- 
cided in  affirming  that  they  ought  to  be  no  bar  in  the 
way  of  Christian  fellowship  and  communion. 

It  will  be  said,  again,  that  those  to  whom  the  Apostle 
wrote  were  all  baptized  persons,  members  of  the  church  ; 
and  consequently  his  directions  to  them  are  no  evidence 
of  the  manner  fn  which  he  would  decide  questions  relat- 
ing to  baptism. — It  might  be  difficult  to  prove,  that  all 
those  to  whom  directions  are  given  in  the  Epistles  of 
Paul  had  been  baptized  in  any  way, — and  especially,  that 
theyhad  all  been  immersed.  Bat  suppose  they  had  been  : 
it  is  still  true,  confessedly  so,  that  the  modern  questions 
respecting  baptism  are  unessential  to  Christian  character 
and- a  hope  of  heaven, 4and  consequently  that  they  rest  on 
the  same  general  ground  with  the  questions  agitated  in 
the  days  of  Paul.  It  could  not  be  expected  that  the  di- 
rections of  the  Apostles  would  meet  all  the  particular 
cases  which  might  occur  in  the  church,  from  that  period 
to  the  end  of  the  world.  They  laid  down  general  princi- 
ples, and  applied  them  to  cases  immediately  in  hand  ;  but 
left  it  to  the  wisdom  of  other  ages  further  to  use  and  ap- 
ply them,  as  there  might  be  occasion. 

Nothing  is  more  certain  from  the  New  Testament,  than 
that  the  church  of  Christ  is  one  body.  "  As  we  have 
many  members  in  one  body,  and  all  members  have  not 
the  same  office,  so  we,  being  many,  are  one  body  in 
Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of  another."  Rom. 
xii.  4,  5,    And  this  is  true,  not  only  of  the  real,  spiritual 


CLOSE    COMMUNION".  "143 

chdrch  of  Christ,  but  equally  so  of  the  visible  church. 
For  what  is  the  visible  church?  It  is  the  real  church 
bodied  forth,  made  visible,  by  a  credible  profession  of 
godliness ;  so  that  if  Christ's  spiritual  church  is  one,  his- 
visible  church  must  be  equally  so;  and  if  the  former  may 
with  propriety  be  represented  as  his -body,  the  latter  is  his 
visible  body.  "  By  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into 
one  body."  "  Now  ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  mem-" 
bers  in  particular."  1  Cor.  xii.  13,27.  To  divide  the 
church  of  Christ,  therefore,  is  to  divide  his  body.  To 
separate  a  portion  of  the  acknowledged  members  of  his 
church,  and  refuse  to  hold  communion  with  them,  is,  a? 
Mr.  Baxter  expresses  it,  to  "  separate"  the  members  of 
Christ's  Body,  and  tear  his  fles.h,  and  break  his  bones." 
This,  it  hardly  need  be  said,  is  as  unscripturai  as  it"  is 
unnatural.     "Is  Christ  divided?" 

The  Scriptures  represent  the  human  family  as  belong- 
ing to  two  general  classes,  believers  and  unbelievers, 
saints  and  sinneis;  'and  to  those  of  the  former  class — all 
who  give  evidence  of  belonging  to  the  number  of  God's 
children,  they  uniformly  appropriate  the  privileges  of  his 
children.  These  are  the  members  of  his  family,  and  en- 
titled, as  such,  to  the  provisions  of  his  house.  Hence,  to 
make  a  separation  between  persons  of  this  character,  and 
exclude  a  part. of  them  from  the  table  of  their  Lord,  is  a 
proceeding,  not  only  unknown  to  the  Scriptures,  but 
manifestly  contrary  to  the  general  spirit  and  current  of 
the  sacred  writings. 

It  is'  evidently  the  will  of  Christ  as  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures,  that  his  followers  should  be  one.  "  Neither 
pray  I  for  these  alone,  but  for  them  also  which  shall  be- 
lieve on-  me  through  their  word, — that  they  all  may  be  one  ; 
as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also 
may  bo  one  in  us."  John  xvii.  20,  21.  Hence,  those 
Christians  may  be  sure  that  they  best  perform  the  will  of 


144*  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

Christ,  who  strive  most  earnestly  and  successfully  to  pre- 
vent divisions,  and  promote  unity  and  peace  among  his 
true  followers.  But  how  shall  this  important  object  be 
-best  promoted  1  By  drawing  lines  of  separation  between 
the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  excluding  a  part  of  them  from 
their  Master's  table  1.  Or  by  bearing  with  one  another's 
mistakes  and  infirmities,  in  things  unessential  to  Chris- 
tian character,  and  receiving  one  another,  even  as  Christ 
has-  received  them  ? 

In  every  view  which  can  be  taken  of  the  subject, . I  am 
constrained  to  "regard  what  is  commonly  called  close  com- 
munion as  unscriptural.  It  was  entirely  unknown  in  the 
first  age  of  the  church.  The  Apostles  seem  not  to  have 
contemplated  such  a  thing  as  possible.  Of  course,  they 
did  not  expressly  prohibit  it  ;  and  yet  they  established 
principles  which,  by  a  fair  and  general  application,  go 
decidedly  to  condemn  it. 

2.  *  The  practice  of  close  communion  is  contrary  to 
that  of  the  .church  in  the  ages  succeeding  the  Apostles. 
There  were  differences  of  opinion  among  the  primitive 
believers  in  regard  to  points  not  deemed  .essential ;  but 
these  were  not  suffered  to  break  the  unity  of  the  church. 
Such  was  the  dispute  about  the  time  and  manner  of  cele- 
brating Easter.  This  may  be  deemed  a  trifling  matter  to 
Christians  of  the  present  age  ;  but  in  primitive  times,  it 
was  a  question  of  high  interest  and  importance.  And 
when  Victor,  one  of  the  bishops  of  Rome,  undertook  to 
excommunicate  his  Eastern  brethren,  because  they  would  • 
not  yield  to  his  opinion  on  the  subject,  he  was  rebuked 
for  so  unchristian  a  procedure,  and  obliged, to  retrace^his 
steps.  Says  Irenceus,  writing  to  him,  "The  Presbyters 
who  before  ruled  the  church  which  you  now. govern, 
neither  observed  themselves,  nor  permitted  their  people 
to  observe,  the  day  which  is  kept  by  the  Asiatic  Chris- 
tians ;  nevertheless,  while  they  did  not  observe  that  day, 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  145 

they  maintained  peace  with  the  other  Presbyters  who  did  ; 
and  never  were  any  on  account  of  this  diversity  cast  out 
of  the  church  ;  but  the  Presbyters  who  preceded  you,  and 
did  not  keep  the  day,  sent  the  Eucharist  to  those  toho  did. 
And  when  blessed  Polycarp  went  on  a  journey  to  Rome, 
in  the  time  of  Anicetus,  and  they  had  some  little  differ- 
ence about  other  matters,  they  immediately  dropped  it 
for  the  sake  of  peace,  and  would  by  no  means  cherish 
contention  on  this  head.  Anicetus  could  not,  indeed, 
persuade  Polycarp  to  relinquish  his  observance  as  having 
always  kept  it  with  John,* the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  and 
the  other  Apostles  with  whom  he  had  been  conversant. 
Nor  did  Polycarp  persuade  Anicetus  to  adopt  it,  as  he 
pleaded  for  the  necessity  of  retaining  the  custom  of  the 
Presbyters  who  had  gone  before  him.  Yet,  while  things 
were  in  this  state,  they  held  communion  with  each  other. _, 
And  in  the  church,  Anicetus,  from  pure  respeci,  yielded 
to  Polycarp  the  dispensation  of  the  Eucharist,  and  they 
amicably  separated  from  each  other,  and  the  peace  of  the 
whole  chinch  was  preserved,  both  by  those  who  kept  the 
day,  and  those  who  did  not.''* 

Another  dispute  with  which  the  church  in  those  times 
was  agitated,  related  to  the  validity  of  certain  baptisms, 
and  was  not  altogether  unlike  modern  questions  touching 
the  same  subject.  Many  doubted  concerning  the  bap- 
tisms administered  by  heretics,  and  whether  it  was  proper 
to  receive  persons  so  baptized  into  the  church,  without  a 
repetition  of  the  ordinance.  But  neither  was  this  matter, 
for  a  considerable  time  at  least,  permitted  to  interrupt  the 
fellowship  of  the  church.  "Many  things,"  says  an  ex- 
cellent man,  writing  to  the  celebrated  Cyprian  at  this  pe- 
riod— "  many  things  vary  according  to  the  diversity  of 
place  and  people  ;  but  nevertheless,  these  variations  have 

*  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  Lib.  vi.  Cap.  24. 

13 


146  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

at  no  time  infringed  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Catholic 
church.'"* 

There  were  differences' of  opinion  among  the  primitive 
Christians  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  church  government. 
Originally,  the  church  was  governed  by  Presbyters,  the 
words  Presbyter  and  Bishop  designating  the  same  office. 
But  in  the  course  of  a  few  centuries,  Episcopal  govern- 
ment was  introduced,  and  the  primitive  order  of  things 
was  changed.  In  proof  of  this,  the  following  quotation 
from  Jerome  is  decisive.  "  A  Presbyter  is  the  same  as  a 
Bishop  ;  and  before  there  were,,  by  the  instigation  of  the 
devil;  dissensions  in  religion,  and  it  was  said  among  the 
people,  I'ajn  of  Paid,  and  I  of  Ap olios,  and  I  of  Cephas, 
the  churches  were  governed  by  the  joint  counsel  of  the 
Presbyters.  But  afterwards,  when  every  one  accounted 
those  whom  he  baptized  as  belonging  to  himself,  and  not 
to  Christ,  it  was  decreed  throughout  the  whole  world, 
that  one  chosen  from  among  the  Presbyters,  should  be 
put  over  the  rest,  and  that  the  whole  care  of  the 
church  should  be  committed  to  him,  and  the  seeds  of 
of  schism  be  taken  away." — Again  this  learned  father  says, 
after  having  quoted  and  commented  on  several  passages 
of  Scripture  in  proof  of  the  same  point,  "  Among  the 
ancients,  Presbyters  and  Bishops  were  the  very  same. 
But  by  degrees,  (paulatim)  that  the  plants  of  dissensions 
might  be  plucked  up,  the  whole  concern  was  devolved 
upon  an  individual.  As  the  Presbyters,  therefore,  know 
that,  by  the  custom  of  the  church,,  they  are  subjected  to 
him  who  is  set  over  them,  so  let  the  Bishops  knovV,  that 
they  are  greater  than  Presbyters,  more  by  custom,  than  by 
any  real  appointment  of  Christ."t 

Such  is  the  language  of  one  who  lived  within  a  few 

*  Cypriani  Opera,  Part  ii.  p.  220.    See  also  Murdock's  Mosheim,  Vol  i. 
p.  226. 
t  Hyronymi  Opera,  Tom.  vi.  p.  168, 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  147 

centuries  of  the  Apostles,  testifying  to  the  changes  which 
had  taken  place  in  the  government  of  the  church.  Yet 
the  changes,  and  the  differences  of  opinion  and  discus- 
sions which  must  necessarily  have  grown  out  of  them,  did 
not  produce,  and  were  not  thought  sufficient  to  warrant 
separate  communions.  Those  who  were  the  most  stren- 
uous in  opposition  to  the  prevailing  innovations  were  en- 
tirely averse,  as  Jerome  tells  us  in  another  place,  to 
"cutting  asunder  the  harmony  of  brotherly  union." 

Our  Baptist  brethren  believe  that,  in  the  times  of  the 
Apostles  in f ant  baptism  was  unknown  ;  but  that  in  a  few 
centuries  it  was  introduced,  and  prevailed,  and  became 
almost  or  altogether  universal, — so  that  in  the  age  of  Au- 
gustine, the  learned  and  acute  PeKHgius  was  constrained 
to  declare,  that  he  "  never  heard  of  any,  -not  even  the 
most  impious  heretic,  who  denied  baptism  to  infants."*  It 
is  natural  to  suppose  that  so  great  an  innovation  (if  an  in- 
novation it  be,)  must  have  led  to  differences  of  opinion 
and  disputes ;  and  yet  we  ask — not  for  the  evidence  of 
such  disputes  (this  would  be  out  of  place  here) — but  for 
the  evidence  that  these  disputes,  if  they  did  exist,  were 
suffered  to  break  the  unity  of  the  church.  Where  were 
the  churches  which  on  account  of  this  alleged  innovation, 
withdrew  from  their  brethren,  and  refused  to  have  com- 
munion with  thefh  at  the  table  of  the  Lord  ?  Suffice  it  to 
say,  that  we  have  no  trace  of  any  such  churches  in  ancient 
times,  and  no  reason  to  believe  that  any  existed  ;  and  this 
fact,  were  there  no  other,  ought  to  satisfy  the  abettors  of 
close  communion,  that  they  have  departed  from  the  ex- 
ample of  the  primitive  Christians. 

It  is  claimed,  too,  by  our  Baptist  brethren,  that  there 
were  many  of  their  sentiments  previous  to  the  reformation 
from  Popery,  but  that  they  mingled  promiscuously  with 
the  other  pious   dissenters,   and   were  closely   concealed 

*  See  Wall's  Hist,  of  In  Baptism,  Vol.  i.  p.  62. 


148  CLOSE  COMMUNION. 

from  the  eyes  of  their  persecutors.  Thus  it  is  said  by 
Benedict,  in  his  history  of  the  Baptists,  that  "  before  the 
rise  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  there  Jay  concealed  in  almost 
all  the  countries  of  Europe,  particularly  in  Bohemia,  Mo- 
ravia, Switzerland,  and  Germany,  many  persons  who  ad- 
hered tenaciously  to  the  doctrine  which  the  Waldenses, 
Wickliffites,  and  Hussites  had  maintained.  These  con- 
cealed Christians,"  he  adds,  "  we  have  good  reasons  for 
believing,  were  mostly  Baptists."  And  Crosby  says 
that,  previous  to  the  year  1633,  the  Baptists  in  England 
"  had  been  intermixed  with  other  Protestant  Dissenters 
without  distinction,  and  shared  with  the  Puritans  in  the 
persecutions  of  those  times."*  Here  are  express  admis- 
sions on  the  part  of  learned  Baptist  historians  that  previ- 
ous to  the  reformation,  their  brethren  toere  'intermixed 
with  other  dissenters,'  and  of  course  that  close  communion 
was  unknown. 

3.  The  practice  of  close  communion  necessarily  leads 
those  who  adopt  it  into  various  and  palpable  inconsisten- 
ces.— It  would  seem  from  their  principles,  that  what  are 
commonly  called  Pedobaptist  churches  are  not,  in  any 
proper  sense,  churches  of  Christ.  Baptism,  we  are  told, 
is  "  the  divinely  appointed  mode  of  entrance  into  the  vis- 
ible church ;"  and  Pedobaptists  have  not  been  baptized. 
Of  course,  they  have  not  so  much  as  Shtered  the  visible 
church ;  and  hence  their  associations  in  covenant  cannot 
with  any  propriety  be  denominated  churches.  If  the 
premises  are  admited,  the  conclusion  would  seem  inevita- 
ble. And  yet  most  of  the  close-communionists  with  whom 
I  am  acquainted  admit  that  the  Pedobaptist  churches  are 
churches  of  Christ;  and  that  their  ministers  are  ministers 
of  Christ. t     Indeed,  the  ministers  of  the  two  denomina- 

*  See  Benedict's  Hist,  of  the  Baptists,  Vol.  i.  pp.  138,  197. 

t  See  an  Article  in  the  Boston  Recorder  of  May  25,  1322,  adopted  by  an 
extensive  union  of  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists,  in  which  the  churches  of  the 
two  denominations  are  recognized  as  churches  of  Christ,  and  their  ministers 
as  ministers  of  Christ,  qualified  to  perform  ministerial  acts, 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  149 

tions  freely  associate  as  ministers  of  Christ,  in  religious 
meetings,  Ecclesiastical  councils,  an  exchange  of  services, 
&x. 

But  then  again,  if  the  Pedobaptist  churches  arc 
churches  of  Christ,  why  not  commune  with  them  as  such  ? 
And  why  not  admit  their  members  at  least  to  occasional 
communion  ?  Why  present  the  strange  anomaly  of  ac- 
knowledged church  members,  who  cannot  be  received  to 
an  ordinance  of  the  church;  ajid  of  those  who  are  admit- 
ted to  fellowship  in  every  other  mode,  as  members  of 
Christ's  church  and  ministers  of  his  kingdom,  who  are  not 
admitted  to  a  seat  at  his  table  ? 

In  reply  to  what  is  here  urged,  it  is  insisted  by  Mr. 
Fuller,  in  his  Conversations  on  Mixed  and  Strict  Com- 
munion, (pp.  100 — 110,)  that  the  office  of  a  gospel  minis- 
ter does  not  belong  to  the  church  relation,  or  at  lea"st  is 
not  peculiar  to  it,  so  that  a  person  may  consistently  be  re- 
ceived as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  who  is  not  regarded  as 
a  church  member.  But  is  the  gentleman  serious  in  this 
matter?  And  if  he  is,  are  the~  Baptists  of  our  own 
country  prepared  to  adopt  his  views  ?  It  would  be  doing 
them  great  injustice  to  suppose  it.  In  licensing  a  man 
to  preach  the  gospel,  and  especially  in  ordaining  him,  no 
people  would  be  more  likely  than  they  to  inquire  into  his 
church  relation  and  standing ;  nor  do  I  believe  they 
'would  admit  one,  on  any  account  into  their  pulpits,  to 
declar*to  them  the  truth  of  God,  who  they  did  not  sup- 
pose was  a  member  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

It  has  been  said  by  some,  that  as  the  Lord's  supper  is  a 
positive  institution,  it  rests  on  different  ground  from  that 
of  other  religious  services,  in  which  unbaptized  persons 
may  consistently  unite.  But  I  would  ask,  in  reply, 
whether  the  gospel  ministry  is  not  a  positive  institution  ; 
and  one  of  as  great  importance,  and  demanding  as  high 
qualifications,  as  the  Lord's  supper  ?  Indeed,  does  it  not 
*13 


150  CLOSE    COMMUNION, 

demand  much  higher  qualifications?  How  many  thou- 
sands are  there  in  the  churches,  worthy  partakers  of  the 
Lord's  supper^  whom  no  one  would  think  qualified  to 
preach  the  gospel? — I  would  inquire,  too,  whether  the 
Apost  e  did  not  consider  preaching  as  a  more  important 
work,  than  even  administering  ordinances  ?  '  The  latter 
could  be  done  by  ordinary  helpers  ;  but  "  Christ,"  says  he 
"  sent  me,  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel."  1  Cor. 
i:   17. 

The  advocates  of  close  communion  are  willing  to  ad- 
mit, that  many  Pedobaptists  are  real  Christians.  But  if 
they  are  real  Christians,  they  are  in  the  number  of  God's 
children  and  have  aright  to  sit  at  their  Father's  table.  If 
they  are  real  Christians,  they  have  spiritual  communion 
with  Christ  and  his  people,  and  ought  to  be  permitted  to 
have  visible  communion.  God  communes  with  them,  if 
they  are  real  Christians  ;  and  why  should  any  of  the  pro- 
fessing people  of  God  be  more  strict  in  their  communion, 
than  he  is?  If  Pedobaptists  are  real  Christians,  they  are 
among  those  who  feed  upon  Christ  by  faith ;  and  why 
are  they  not  permitted  to  feed  upon  the  appointed  emblems 
of  his  body  and  blood  ?  They  are  partakers  really  and 
spiritually ;  and  why  should  they  not  be  sacramentally  ? 
If  Pedobaptists  are  real  Christians,  they  are  heirs  of 
heaven,  and  will  shortly  be  received  to  heaven ;  and  why 
should  it  be  made  more  difficult  to  obtain  a  seat  at  cer- 
tain sacramental  tables  on  earth,  than  to  procur%  admis- 
sion to  the  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb  above?  Heaven 
is  certainly  the  great  object  and  end  of  the  Christian's 
pilgrimage,  and  earthly  ordinances  are  but  the  means  of 
obtaining  it ;  and  why  should  it  be  made  more  difficult 
to  secure  the  means  than  the  end  ?  Why  should  the 
Lord's  table  be  barred  against  the  approach  of  those,  to 
whom  the  gate  of  heaven  is  open  ? 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  151 

The  advocates  of  close  communion  are  not  a  little  em- 
barrassed with  the  question,  whether  it  is  right  for  Pedo- 
baptists  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  supper  in  their  own 
churches. .  As  this  ordinance  is  a  positive  divine  institu- 
tion, it  must  be  the  same  under  all  circumstances ;  so  that 
if  it  is  right  for  Pedobaptists  to  celebrate  it  in  one  place, 
it  is  right  in  another ;  or  if  it  is  wrong  in  one  place,  it  is 
wrong  (other  things  being  equal)  in  another.  Hence,  if 
it  is  wrong  for  them  to  celebrate  the  supper  in  connexion 
with  Baptists,  it  is  wrong,  and  no  less  a  profanation  of 
the  ordinance,  for  them  to  celebrate  it  by  themselves. 
Accordingly,  when  pressed  with  the  argument  in  this  di-' 
rection,  our  brethren  commonly  speak  out,  and  declare  it 
to  be  'a  departure  from  the  traditions  of  the  Apostles, 
and  a  pouring  contempt  on  one  of  the  positive  institutions 
of  Christ,'  for  us  to  come  to  the  communion  in  the  man- 
ner we  do.*  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  they  appear  to 
manifest  no  great  uneasiness  at  the  continuance  of  this 
alledged  profanation  ;.  will  consent  to  preach  our  sacra- 
mental lectures  ;  and  by  their  conduct  seem  to  say,  that 
if  we  will  only  keep  at  a  distance  from  them,  and  cele- 
brate the  ordinance  by  ourselves,  they  are  satisfied.  In- 
deed, Mr.  Fuller,  in  the  work  already  referreil  to,  ex- 
pressly says,  that  "  on  their  own  principles,  Pedobaptists 
do  right  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  supper."     p.  32. 

It  affords  me  no  pleasure  to  urge  these  inconsistencies 
upon  my  brethren  of  the  strict  communion  ;  butas  their 
practice  necessarily  involves  them,  and  many  more,  it  is 
important  that  they  should  be  able  to  appreciate  some  of 
the  difficulties  with  which,  in  the  judgment  of  others, 
their  system  is  encumbered. 

4.  I  object  again  to  the  practice  of  close  communion, 
that  it  is  an  interruption  of  mutual  charity,  and  a  hin- 

*  See  Andrews's  Strictures,  &c,  p.  40. 


152 


CLOSE    COMMUNION, 


drance  to  Christian  love.     It  leads  those  who  adopt  "it  to 
judge  the  hearts  of  their  brethren,  and  impugn  their  mo- 
tives, as  they  would  not  do,  were  it  not  for  the  difficulties 
with  which  they  feel  themselves   pressed   in  -relation   to 
this  subject.     Although  they  are  willing  to  admit,  as"  al- 
ready stated,  that  many  Pedobaptists  are  pious  persons — 
some  of  them  eminently  so — yet  when  they  come  to  apol- 
ogize for  not  admitting  them  to  the  Lord's   table   on  the 
ground  of  their  alleged  mistakes   in   regard  to  baptism, 
.they  almost  uniformly  assail  their  motives.     Thus  in  the 
work   of  Fuller,   the  excellent  Baxter   is   charged  with 
"  avowing  his  conviction  of  one   system,   and  acting  on 
another,"  p.  134  ;   and  Pedobaptists  generally  are  said  to 
live  in  voluntary  error,  which  is  to  live  in  allowed  sin,  p. 
126.    Even  Professor  Ripley,  with  all  his  Candor  (and  in 
general  he  is  very  candid)  cannot  help  insinuating,  that 
many  are  prevented  from  adopting  Baptist  principles,  be- 
cause they  "  fear  to  examine ;"  or  "  hastily  think  them- 
selves incompetent  to  form  an  opinion  ;"  or  "  are  under 
the  influence  of  prejudice  from  various  quarters;"  or  are 
deterred  by  "  the  inconveniences  attending  the  adoption 
of  such  sentiments."*     Now  I  am    far  from   saying  that 
no  person  was  ever  kept  back  from   becoming  a  Baptist 
or  a  Pedobaptist  by  considerations  like  these;   but  I  sup- 
pose they  are  as  likely  to  operate  one  way  as  the  other, 
and   that   it  is  not  very  charitable,  in  either  party,  to  at- 
tribute, the  alleged  mistakes  of  the  other  to  the  influence 
of  such  motives 

The  principles  of  close  communion  tend  to  interrupt 
charity,  as  they  lead  those  who  embrace  them,  and  have 
sufficient  hardihood  of  consistency  to  carry  them  out,  to 
wage  a  war  of  extermination  upon  other  sects.  The  con- 
sistent close-communionist  regards  the  entire  mass  of  the 

*  Review  of  Dr.  Griffin's  Letter. 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  153 

members  of  Pedobaptist  cburches  as  unbaptized,  and 
consequently  as  disqualified  for  Christian  communion  ; 
and  he  is  prompted  by  what  he  thinks  a  zeal  for  God  to 
do  what  he  can  to  diminish  their  number.  If  he  can  se- 
duce a  sheep  from  tile  fold  of  his  Pedobaptist  neighbor, 
he  thinks  it  so  much  gained  to  the  cause  of  truths  ;  and 
he  will  feel  strong  inducements,  under  such  circumstan- 
ces, to  draw  away  as  many  as  possible.  I  do  not  say  that 
our  ministerial  brethren  of  the  strict  communion  actually 
pursue  the  course  here  described  ;  far  from  it.  A  great 
majority  of  them  at  the  present  day  are  under  the  influ- 
ence of  so  many  counteracting  principles,  that  they  would 
not  consent,  on  any  account,  to  violate  the  courtesies  of 
Christian  intercourse,  or  entrench  upon  the  duties  or  the 
rights  of  others*.  But  I  am  endeavoring  to  exhibit  the 
legitimate  tendency  of  close  communion,  when  carried 
into  full  and  consistent  operation  ;  and  it  cannot  be 
thought  strange  that  those  who  practise  it  should  be  re- 
garded often  with  suspicion,  and  that  a  sad  interruption 
to  the  overflowings  of  Christian  love  should  be  the  conse- 
quence. 

The  principles  of  close  communion  are  a  hindrance  to 
the  exercise  of  Christian  love,  as  they  tend  to  foster  pride 
in  those  who  embrace  them,  under  the  idea  of  having 
done  more  than  others,  and  of  possessing  superior  quali- 
fications; and  to  wound  the  feelings  of  Pedobaptists,  un- 
der the  impression  of  being  set  aside  as  disqualified  for 
the  communion  of  saints.  These  principles  also  lead  to 
disputes  and  separations,  which  too  often  terminate  in 
excited  feelings,  alienation,  and  enmity.  Christians,  for- 
get that  they  are  engaged  in  a  common  cause,  and  have 
a  common  interest,  and  fail  to  afford  each  other  that 
sympathy  and  support  which  circumstances  demand,  and 
the  laws  of  Christ  require.     They  fail  to  bear  one  anoth- 


154  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

er's  burthens,  and  to  co-operate  as  they  ought  in  prayers 
and  labors  to  promote  the  religion  of  the  Saviour. 

It  is  evidence  of  the  truth  of  what  is  here  stated,  that 
when  religion  is  revived  in  a  community,  and  Baptists 
and  Pedobaptists  are  accustomed  to  meet  together,  till 
their  love  is  enkindled  and  their  hearts  are  warmed,  the 
attachment  of  the  former  to  close  communion  almost  uni- 
formly diminishes.  The  hearts  of  numbers  who  had  pre- 
viously practised  it  are  pained  ;  and  not  a  few  indignant- 
ly reject  it.  So  often  have  scenes  of  this  nature  been 
witnessed,  that  there  can  be  no  mistake  in  regard  to 
them. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  too,  that  Missionaries  who  have 
left  their  native  country  in  the  belief  of  the  principles  of 
close  communion,  have  not  unfrequently  renounced  them, 
after  laboring  for  a  time  among  the  heathen.  This  was 
the  case  with  Mr.  Hough,  of  the  American  Baptist  mis- 
sion in  Burmah.  It  was  the  case  with  the  celebrated 
William  Ward,  so  long  a  Missionary  in  Bengal.  It  was 
the  case,  too,  with  the  excellent  Mr.  Chater,  oT  the  Bap- 
tist mission  in  Ceylon.  Christian  Missionaries  among 
the  heathen  are  in  a  favorable  situation  to  feel  the  influ- 
ence of  Christian  love,  and  the  strength  of  those  ties 
which  ought  to  bind  the  hearts  of  Christians  together  ; 
and  if  the  principles  of  close  communion  are  no  hindrance 
to  the  exercise  of  love  and  charity,  in  what  way  are  the 
facts  on  this  subject  to  be  accounted  for  ? 

Of  the  same  general  bearing  is  the  fact,  that  close 
communion  is  not  unfrequently  renounced  in  sickness, 
and«in  near  views  of  death*     I  am  far  from  attaching  an 

*  "  In  S.  B.  lived  a  man  of  the  Baptist  church,  who  for  many  years  had 
not  called  in  question  the  correctness  of  that  article  of  the  Baptist  faith 
which  excludes  acknowledged  Christians  from  communion.  When  sick,  as 
there  was  no  church  of  the  same  faith  in  the  place,  a  minister  of  the  Con- 
gregational order  was  sent  for.    After  conversation  and  prayer  suited  to 


cLOSE    COMMUNION.  155 

undue  importance  or  authority  to  what  is  said  or  done  on 
beds  of  sickness ,-  but  Christian  love  often  flows  purer 
and  rises  higher  at  such  times  than  before — so  high  as  to 
break  over  sectarian  barriers,  and  embrace  with  full  af- 
fection all  who  bear  the  image«of  the  Saviour. 

5.  I  object  to  the  principles  of  close  communion  that, 
•  under  the  consistent  operation  of  them,  there  will  often 
occur  cases  of  real  hardship. — Those  who  have  been 
born  of  God  and  truly  love  him,  usually  set  a  high  value 
upon  their  seasons  of  sacramental  communion.  They 
love  to  sit  down'  with  their  fellow  disciples  at  the  table  of 
their  Lord,  lean  upon  his  breast  at  supper,  and  feed  upon 
the  memorials  of  his  body  and  blood.  But  circumstances 
may  be  supposed,  and  are  likely  often  to  occur,  in  which 
individuals  may  be  deprived  of  this  privilege  foe  years, 
perhaps  during  the  greater  part  of  their  lives,  unless  they 
are  admitted  to  communion  in  the  Baptist  churches. 
Here  is  a  pious,  devoted  mother,  a  member  of  a  Pedo- 
baptist  church,  whose   lot   Divine  Providence   has   cast 

the  sick,  the  love  of  God  so  filled  the  soul,  as  to  break  over  all  sectarian 
bounds.  The  tongue  of  the  sick  was  loosed,  to  expatiate  upon  that  charity 
which  limits  its  complacency  only  by  the  want  of  evidence  of  genuine  piety. 
After  much  self-examination  and  deep  regret,  for  not  walking  in  love  with 
those  whom  Christ  receives  to  his  fellowship,  and  expressing  a  lively  hope 
that  this  and  all  other  sins  were  forgiven,  the  eyes  were  closed  in  death." 
[See  Boston  Recorder,  March  1,  1823.] 

"  In  Roxbury,  Vt.,  A.  D.  1821,  Mr.  R.,  an  aged  member  of  the  Baptist 
church,  when  on  his  death  bed,  sent  for  a  member  of  the  Congregational 
church  to  visit  him.  He  had  been  decidedly  against  communing  with  Pe- 
dobaptists  ;  but  after  a  little  conversation,  when  his  neighbor  was  about  to 
return,  he  told  him  that  he  had  something  more  to  say.  He  tarried;  and 
the  sick  man  told  him  that  he  had  a  desire  to  commune  with  him  and  his 
brethren  before  he  left  the  world.  There  was  no  minister  in  the  place,  and 
to  appearance,  he  could  not  live  till  they  could  obtain  one.  His  anxiety, 
however,  was  so  great,  that  a  part  of  the  Congregational  church  was  col- 
lected, one  of  the  deacons  consecrated  the  elements,  he  partook  with  them, 
and  soon  after  died. — It  is  easier  for  Christians  to  reject  each  other  in  life, 
than  when  they  are  entering  into  the  immediate  presence  of  God,  and  going 
to  join  the  general  assembly  above."    [Brooks's  Reply,  p.  58.] 


156  ulosIs   COMMUNION. 

where  she  can  have  Christian  intercourse  only  with 
Baptists.  And  her  intercourse  with  them  is  in  gen- 
eral pleasant.  She  listens  to  their  preachers,  and  is 
instructed  and  edified.  She  meets  with  them  in  the  pray- 
ing circle,  and  her  heart  «is  warmed.  She  co-operates 
with  them  in  works  of  faith  and  labors  of  love,  and  in 
promoting  various  objects  of  Christian  benevolence.  Her 
affections  mingle  with  theirs,  and  theirs  with  hers,  and 
they  are  spiritually  of  one  heart  and  soul.  But  when  the 
table  of  the  Lord  is  spread,  and  she  asks  permission  to 
approach,  she  is  grieved  to  find  herself  excluded.  '  And 
why,'  she  asks,  '  am  I  excluded  ?  Do  T  not  give  you  sat- 
isfactory evidence  of  being  a  child  of  God — of  being  one 
with  you  in  spirit — of  being  one  with  whom  the  Saviour 
communes  ?  And  why  can  I  not  have  communion  with 
you  T — 'Why,  dear  sister,'  it  is  replied,  '  you  have  not 
been  baptized.' — '  Bnt  I  have  been  baptized,'  she  rejoins. 
'  I  have  given  myself  up  to  God  in  baptism,  according  to 
his  appointment,  and  in  that  manner  which  I  think  most 
agreeable  to  his  will.' — 'Ah,  but  you  are  mistaken  on 
that  subject;  we  know  you  are  ;  you  must  renounce  your 
pretended  baptism,  and  go  with  us  into  the  water,  and 
then  we  can  receive  you.' — '  Renounce  my  baptism,'  she 
exclaims.  '  I  can  never  do  that.  It  was  the  most  sacred 
action  of  my  life.  I  might  almost  as  well  renounce  my 
Saviour.' — 'Well,  sister,  we  are  sorry  for  you;  but  un- 
less you  can  comply  with  our  terms,  we  cannot  receive 
you.'  And  so  this  child  of  God,  because  she  will  not  do 
violence  to  her  conscience,  and  renounce  what  she  deems 
the  most  sacred  act  of  her  life,  is  driven  away  from  her 
Father's  table ;  and  this,  too,  under  circumstances  in 
which  it  is  known  that  she  can  have  communion  with  no 
other  church,  but  must  pass  her  life,  and  perhaps  end  her 
days,  and  never  more  have  the  privilege  of  coming  to  the 
sacramental  board.    And  is  there  no  hardship  in  all  this? 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  157 

Is Jhere  nothing  revolting  to  the  pious  heart"?*  And  let 
it  not  he  thought  that  this  is  wholly  an  imaginary  case. 
It  is  drawn  from  the  life.  There  are  many  such  instan- 
ces now  in  existence.  And  if  the  principles  of  close 
communion  were  piore  widely  diffused,  they  would  be 
proportionally  multiplied.  Can  these  principles,  then,  be 
in  accordance  with  the  gospel?  Can  they  be  a  part  of 
that  religion  which  says. expressly  to  its  professors,  when 
differing  on  points  not  essential  to  salvation,  '  Receive  ye 
one  another,  as  Christ  also  received  us.  Who  art  thou 
that  judgest  another  man's  servant?' 

But  instances  like  that  above  described  are  not-the  on- 
ly cases  of  hardship  'growing  out  of. close  communion. 
There  are  others  of  a  different  character.  It  is  a  fact, 
that  no  inconsiderable  proportion  of  the  members  of  the 
Baptist  churches  are  opposed  to  close  communion  ;  their 

.  consciences  are  pained  with  it,  and  their  souls  are  in 
bondage  on  account  of  it.  Mr.  Hall,  says,  "  It  frequent- 
ly happens  that  the  constitution  of  a  church  continues  to 
sanction  strict  communion,  while  the  sentiments  ofa  vast 
majority  of  its  members  are  decidedly  in  favor  of  a  con- 
trary system."  In  another  place  he  expresses  the  opin- 
ion that  a  majority  of  the  present  Baptists  are  in  favor  of 
open  communion.  Works,  Vol.  i.- pp.  396,  401.  A  Bap- 
tist   minister    of    our    own    country     also    says,    ■'  It    is 

'  not  known  by  the  close  communion  Baptists  how  many 
there  are  of  their  own  denomination  who  believe,  in  their 

»  *  There  is  reason  to  believe,  that  the  operation  of  the  principles  of  close 
communion  is  often  as  painful  to  those  who  exclude,  as  to  those  who  are 
excluded.  A  brother  in  the  ministry  (not  a  Baptist)  who  had  acted  upon 
these  principles,  and  had  excluded  a  female_ under  circumstances  not  alto- 
gether unlike  those  above  detailed,  writes,  "  She  put  her  kerchief  to  her 
eyes,  and  turned  away,  struggling-  with  anguish,  and  the  tears  streaming 
down  h^er  cheeks.  How  did  my  heart  smite  me  !  I  went  home  exclaiming 
to  myself,  '  Can  this  be  right  ?  Is  it  possible  (hat  such  is  the  law  of  the  Re- 
deemer's house  V  "     [Mason's  Plea,  &c.  p.  7.] 

14 


158  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

hearts,  in  open  communion.  I  was  surprised,  after  di- 
vulging my  sentiments,  to  find  so  many  who  entertained 
the  same  belief — some  of  them  for  years."  Brooks's 
Essay,  p.  22.  This  testimony  is  in  accordance  with  my 
own  observation.  I  am  acquainted  with  not  a  few  indi- 
viduals, members  of  Baptist  churches,  who  -freely  ac- 
knowledge that  they  are  not  satisfied  with  close  commun- 
ion— that  they  believe  it  unscriptural — and  that  they 
would  abandon  it  at  once,  were  it  not  for  displeasing. 
some  of  their  brethren. — But  is  it.  no  hardship  for  a 
Christian  to  live  in  this  way — habitually  trifling  with  his 
conscience,  and  conniving  at  that  which  he  thinks  is 
wrong,  from  a  fear  of  giving  offence  to  his  brethren  1  Is 
such  a  state  of  mind  favorable  to  Christian  enjoyment? 
Is  this  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  makes  his  people 
free  ? 

6.  I  object  to  the  practice  of  close  communion,  that 
it  is  upheld  and  continued,  in  part  at  least,  from  sectarian 
motives.  I  should  not  feel  warranted  in  making  this  as- 
sertion, however  clearly  facts  might  seem  to  justify  it, 
were  it  not  that  the  truth  of  it  is  acknowledged.  In  the 
work  already  referred  to,  Mr.  Fuller  says,  "  -The  tenden- 
cy Of  mixed  communion  is  to  annihilate,  as. such,  all  the 
Baptist  churches  in  Christendom."  And  he  asks, <(  Do 
you  wish  to  promote  the  dissolution  and  ruin  of  the  Bap- 
tist denomination,  as  such  ?  If  you  do  not,  take  heed  to 
your  ways."  pp.  24,  25.  •  Thus  close  communion  is  con- 
fessedly to  be  retained,  because  its  continuance  is  deerm- 
ed  necessary  to  the  existence  of  a  sect.  One  of  the  lines 
of  separation  between  the  members  of  Christ's  mystical 
body  would  be  gradually  worn  out  and  disappear,  were  it 
not  for  close  communion;  and  therefore  the  practice 
must  be  vigorously  maintained. 

In  reply  to  this  I  will  only  say,  that  I  have  no  fears  for 
the  denomination  to  which  I  belong,  in  consequence  of  a 


CLOS^  COMMUNION.  159 

free  and  fraternal  intercourse  with  other  denominations 
of  real  Christians.  If  we -cannot  mingle  freely  with 
brethren  of  other  names,  who  agree  with  us  in  holding 
the  Head,  and  look  candidly  and  closely  into  their  pecu- 
liarities, and  suffer  them  to  look  into  ours,  without  losing 
our  existence  as  a  sect,  then  toe  desire  to  lose  it.  The 
sooner  we  incur  the  loss,  the  better. — The  time  has  come, 
when  Christians  must  think  less  about  their  peculiar 
sects,  their  denominations  "  as  such,"  and  more  about  the 
general  interests  of  truth  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 
And  it  is  objection  enough  to  any  practice  in  the  church, 
that  it  requires  to  be  sustained  by  fomenting  a  sectarian 
spirit. 

•  7.  I  object  again  to  close  communion,  that  it  is  op- 
posed to  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  operates  in  various 
ways  to  retard  the  progress  of  Christ's  kingdom. — The 
age  in  which  we  live  is  one  of  peculiar  interest.  The 
Christian  world  is  awaking  from  its  slumbers  to  unwont- 
ed efforts  ;  and  Satan  is  coming  out  in  great  wrath,  know- 
ing that  he  hath  but  a  short  time.  The  people  of  God 
are  beginning  to  move  and  operate  together;  and  the  en- 
emies of  truth  and  righteousness  are  doing  the  same. 
On  every  hand,  lines  are  drawing,  and  sides  are  taking, 
preparatory  to  the  conflict  of  tiie  last  days.  The  aspect 
of  the  times  obviously  demands  the  utmost  practicable 
union  among  Christians,  and  that  every  thing  tending  to 
obstrucfthis  union  should  be  speedily  taken  out  of  the 
way.  One  of  these  obstructions,  unquestionably,  is  close 
communion.  This  tends,  as  we  have  seen,  to  break  the 
unity  of  the  church,  to  interrupt  mutual  charity,  to  hin- 
der the  exercise  of  Christian  love.  It  divides  the  affec- 
tions, and  insulates  and  weakens  the  efforts  of  those,  who 
ought  to  love  as' brethren,  and  to  go  hand  in  hand  to  their 
appropriate  work.  It  leads  those  often  to  waste  their 
strength  upon  each  other,  whose  united  strength  ought  to 


160  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

be  directed  against  a  common  enemy.  It  causes  them  to 
interfere  and  contend  with*  each  other,  between  whom 
there  should  be  no  strife,  except  who  shall  be  most  fervent 
in  love,  and  most  zealous  in  efforts  for  promoting  the  Re- 
deemer's kingdom. 

An  incalculable  amount  of  time,  labor,  and  money, 
which  is  now  expended  for  sectarian  purposes,  might  be 
directed  to  the  common  interests  of  Christianity,  were  it 
not  for  close  communion.  In  how  m9ny  places  in  the 
United  States,  where  there  are  now  two  or  three  socie- 
ties, all  feeble,  struggling  for  existence,  and  aided  per- 
haps by  public  charity,  might  there  be  one  strong,  effi- 
cient society,  able  to  support  itself  and  to  assist  others,  if 
those  who  regard  each  other  as  real  Christians  could  only  ■ 
consent  to  commune  together  at  the  table  of  the  Lord  ? 
I  earnestly  wish  my  brethren  of  the  close  communion  to 
take  this  subject  into  serious  consideration,  and  would  in- 
.  quire  whether — wherever  there  are  now  two  or  three  so- 
cieties or  meeting  houses  where,  but  for  their  principles, 
there  need  be  but  one — the  whole  of.this  needless  ex- 
pense is  not  justly  chargeable  to  their  account  ;■ — and 
whether — wherever  there  are  now  two  or  three  ministers 
stationed  where,  but  for  close  communion,  there  need  be 
but  one — nearly  the  whole  of  this  superfluous  labor, 
which  might  be  expended  in  building  up  the  wastes  of 
Zion,  is  not  now  lost  to  the  general  cause  of  Christ  ?* 

On  the  whole,  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  principles  of 
close  communion  are   wrong; — that  they  are  contrary  to 

*  Evangeftcal  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  have  found"  already  that  they 
can  worship  together  with  mutual  satisfaction ;  and  if  they  could  but  -com- 
mune together  at' the  table  of  the.  Lord,  they  might  be  associated,  wherever 
there  should  be  occasion,  in  the  same  congregation  j  the  Pastor  might  be 
of  either  denomination,  according  to  the  wishes  of  the  majority  ;  and  noth- 
ing would  be  wanting  in  such  an  establishment,  but  a  spirit  of  forbearance, 
accommodation  and  love — a  zeat_/br  God,  and  not  for  a  sect — to  promote 
its  prosperity  and  peace. 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  161 

the  Scriptures,  and  to  the  practice  of  the  church  in  the 
purest  times  ;  that  they  tend  to  involve  those  who  hold 
them  in  great  inconsistencies;  and  are,  in  various  ways, 
of  injurious  influence  to  the  cause  of  Christ.  I  say  this, 
not  to  reproach  any  of  my  Baptist  brethren  or  to  give 
them  pain;  but  to. bring  them,  if  possible,  to  considera- 
tion, and  to  devising  ways  and  means  by  which  the  evil 
in  question  may  be  removed.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  most  of  them  are  conscientious  arid  sincere. 
They  are  those  with  whom,  so  far  as  permitted,  we  can 
take  sweet  counsel  now ;  and  with  whom,  were  it  not  for 
close  communion,  our  fellowship  might  be  complete. 
The  obvious  tendency  of  tilings,  at  present,  is  to  remove 
this  difficulty  ;  and  I  have  no  doubt  that,  previous  to  the 
Millennium,  it  will  be  taken  entirely  out  of  the  way  ;  but 
.hoiv  shall  (his  be  clone?  How  shall  the. grand  obstacle  in 
the  way  of  free  and  open  communion  be  removed  ? 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  is  a  point  on  which  it  does  not 
become  a  Congregationalist  to  dictate — perhaps  not  to 
advise  ;  and  yet  (if  it  may  be  permitted)  1. should  like  to 
offer  a  few  remarks. 

The  grand  dffficulty  in  the  way  of  open  communion, 
as  hinted  at  the.  commencement  of  this  discussion,  is  a 
difference  of  opinion  respecting  baptism.  Our  Baptist 
brethren  insist — on  the  ground  of  the  Apostolical  com- 
munion and  practice,  the  significancy  of  the  two  ordinan- 
ces, and  the  general  suffrage  of  the  church — that  bap- 
tism is  necessary,  previous  to  communion.  They  also 
insist,  that  the  members  of  our  churches  have  not  been 
baptized.  Consequently  they  infer,  as  they  think,  con- 
clusively, that  these  members  cannot  with  propriety  be 
admitted  to  the  table  of  the  Lord.*    The  question  now  is, 

*  I  have  called  the  difficulty,  as  above  stated,  the  grand  difficulty;  but 
with  many  of  the  advocates  of  close  communion  it  seems  not  to  be  the  only 
one.    There  are  those  who  insist  that  we  must  be  not  only  immersed,  but 

*14 


162  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

How  shall  this  objection  be  obviated  ?  How  shall  the  dif- 
ficulty be  removed  ? 

I  see  no  probability  that  this  difficulty  will  be  soon  re- 
moved by  a  general  change  of  sentiment  in  our  churches, 
and  by  our  members  becoming  Baptists.  There  has 
been  an  expectation  of  this  sort  among  Baptists — perhaps 
there  is  still  ;  but  I  see  no  prospect  of  its  speedy  accom- 
plishment. The  difference  of  opinion  between  us  and 
them  has  long  been  a  subject  of  solicitude  and  study  ; 
and  for  one  I  can  truly  say,  that  the  more  I  consider  of 
it,  the  more  I  am  convinced  that  I  shall  never  be  a  Bap- 
tist. And  so  far  as  I  know,  my  own  experience  on  this 
head  is  conformable  to  that  of  my  brethren  generally. 
The  relative  strength  and  position  of  the  two  denomina- 
tions, and  the  progress  which  each  is  making  from  year 
to  year,  also  show,  that  no  general  changes  are  to  be  ex- 
pected. 

Besides  ;  if  the  other  denominations  are  ever  to  become 
Baptists,  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  the  change  should  be 
effected  under  thepresent  system. of  operations.  Entire- 
ly separate,  as  we  now  are,  in  our  public  worship  and  or- 
dinances, and  under  the  influence  of  a  variety  of  causes 
tending  to  foment  and  perpetuate  sectarian  prejudices, 
how  can  it  be  expected  that  either  party  should  make  any 
great  approaches  towards  the  other  1  I  agree  entirely 
with  Mr.  Hall,  that  if  the  peculiarities  of  the  Baptist  de- 
immersed  by  one  vvlio  has  been  himself  immersed  ;  and  more  than  this,  we 
must  pledge  ourselves  to  have  no  communion  with  those  who  have  not  been 
qualified  in  the  same  way.  But  close  communionists  of  this  stamp  may  (I 
trust  without  offence)  be  denominated  ultras,.  The-y.  would  not  have  com- 
muned with  Roger  Williams  himself.  They  would  have  excommunicated 
such  Baptists  as  John  Bunyan,  and  William  Ward,  ond  Robert  Hall.  In- 
deed, according  to  their  principles,  it  is  hot  likely  that  there  is  now  a  Bap- 
tist in  America  (not  excepting  themselves  even)  who  is  suitably  qualified 
for  sacramental  communion  ;  as  it  is  not  likely  there  is  an  individual,  who, 
if  his  baptism  were  traced  back,  would  not  find  the  succession  originating  in 
one  who  had  not  himself  been  canonical!]]  immersed. 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  163 

nomination  are  true — if  they  will  bear  the  test  of  examin-  . 
ation — and  if  those  who  hold  them  are  desirous  to  pro- 
mote them  ;  their  past  policy  has  been  a  miserable  one, 
and  it  is  high  time  they  were  pursuing  a  .more  liberal 
course.  Instead  of  holding  themselves  so  entirely  sepa- 
rate, and  keeping  their  brethren  at  a  distance,  they  should 
seek  the  fellowship,  of  other  denominations  who  agree 
with  them  in  holding  the  Head  and  mingle  with  them  as 
freely  and  fraternally  as  possible.  In  this  way  they  may 
disarm  prejudice,  invite  candid  examination  and  discus-, 
sion,  and  if  the  truth  is  with  them,  it  will  be  likely  to  pre- 
vail. For  one,  I  can  truly  say  that  I  desire  to  pursue  a 
course  like  this,  and  am  perfectly  willing  to  risk  the  late 
of  my  Pedobaptist  peculiarities  on  the  issue  of  it.  If 
these  peculiarities  are  not  founded  in  truth,  the  sooner 
we  become  convinced  the  better ;  and  it  is  greatly  to  be 
desired  that  the  whole  Pedobaptist  community  may  be 
placed  in  circumstances  to  look  at  the  subject  without  pre- 
judice, and  give  it  as  thorough  an  examination  as  possi- 
ble. 

'But  how  shall  we  admit  yon  to  communion,'  it  is  ask- 
ed, '  so  long  as  we  regard  you  as'  unhaptized  ?'— If  our 
brethren  are  in  earnest  in  proposing  this  question,  I  am 
very  willing  to  confer  with  them  on  the  subject.  And 
with  due  deference  I  would,  inquire,  why  we  may  not  be 
admitted,  at  least  to  occasional  communion,  on  the  ground 
proposed  by  Mr.  Hall.  Allowing  that  baptism  should,  as 
a  general  thing,  precede. the  supper, -is  the  connexion  be- 
tween the  two  institutions  of  such  a  nature,  that  the  or- 
der of  them  may,  under  no  circumstances,  be  changed  1 
If  the  baptism  of  John  was  not  Christian  baptism,  as  was 
held  by  the  ancients,*  and  is  now  conceded  by  the  most 

*  Ori^n  says,  "Christ  himself  was  baptized  by  John,  not  with  that  bap- 
tism which  is  in  Christ,  but  with  that  which  is  in  the  law."  Comment  on 
Roin.  vi.     Chrysostom  says,  "It  (the  Baptism  of  John)  was  as  it  were  a 


164  CLOSE    COMMUNION.. 

intelligent  Baptists,*  is  it  not  certain  that  the  Apostles 
had  not   received  Christian  Baptism,   at  the  time  of  the 
first  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper?     And  if  it  be  said 
that  their's  was  an  extraordinary  case,  will  it  not  be  law- 
ful to  follow  their  example,  at  least  in  extraordinary  cases? 
There  is  a  natural  order  in  which  most  of  .the  duties'in- 
cumbent  on  us  should   be   attended  to;  but  it  does  not 
follow  usually,  because  the  first  in  a  series  has  been  neg- 
lected, that  the  remainder  cannot  be  performed.     For  in- 
stance, it  is   according   to  the  established   order   in  our 
public  worship,  that  singing  should  precede  the  principal 
prayer,  and  the  prayer  the  sermon  ;  but  because  a  person 
is  not  present  to  unite  in  the  singing,  may  he  not  unite  in 
the  prayer  ?     Or  because   he   is  not  present   to  unite  in 
the  prayer,  may  he  not  listen  to  the  sermon  ?  It  is  Christ's 
direction  that  those  who  are  capable  of  instruction  should 
be  taught  before  they  are  baptized.     But  suppose  a  min- 
ister of  the  Gospel  is  requested  to  baptize  a  believer  who 
he  is  satisfied  knows  four  times  as  much  as  himself;  must 
he  pause  and  go  through  the  formality  of  teaching  such  an 
one,  before  he  ventures  to  administer  the  ordinance?    So 
if,  from  misapprehension   or  any   other  cause  not  affect- 
ing his  religious  character,  a  sincere  Christian  has  not 
received  baptism,  and  yet  desires  to  be  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  Table,  who  shall  say  J.hat  he  may  not  come  ?    Be- 
cause lfe  has  been  prevented  from  obeying  one  command 
of  Christ,  who  shall  prohibit  him  from  obeying  another? 
— But  on  this  branch  of  the  subject  it  is  not  necessary  to 
enlarge.     The  works  of  Mr.  Hall  are   before   the  public, 

bridge  which,  from  the  baptism  of  the  Jews,  made  a  way  to  that  of  the  Sa- 
viour. It  was  superior  to  the  first,  but  inferior  to  the  second."  Homil.  24. 
"John's  Baptism  did  not  serve  for  Christ's.  Paul  baptized  the  disci- 
ples of  John  the  Baptist,  because  they  had  not  been  baptized  into  the  faith 
of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  and  because  they  had  been  baptized  on- 
ly in  the  faith  of  a  Messiah  to  come."   Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  p.  284. 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  165 

in  which  everything  which  need  be  said  in  support  of  this 
theory  is  urged  with  a  surpassing  eloquence. 

To  the  advocates  of  strict  communion  I  will  venture  to 
suggest  another  way  in  which  the  difficulties  between  us 
may  he  consistently  got  over.  Let  them  cease  to  judge  an- 
other man's  servant,  and  leave  him  to  stand  or  fall  to  his 
own  Master.  We  who  differ  from  them  on  the  subject  of 
baptism,  are. not  conscious  of  neglecting  or  trilling  with 
the  ordinance  more  than  they.  We  profess  to  hold  it  in 
as  high  estimation  as  they  do.  We  observe  it  according  to 
the  dictates  of  our  own  consciences — according,  as  we 
•think,  to  the  institution  and  will  of  Christ.  Wo  find  great 
satisfaction  in  the  ordinance,  and  believe  that  our  Sa- 
viour approves  and  blesses  us  in  it.  And  now;  brethren, 
why  can  you  not  meet  us  on  this  ground?  Unless  you 
are  infallible,  you  cannot  know  we  are  wrong,  any  more 
than  we  know  you  are.  And  why  can  you  not  consent  to 
say,  "If  you  love  and  prize  the  ordinance  of. baptism  as 
you  understand  it,  and  really  think  that  you  observe  it 
according  to  .the  institution  of  Christ,  then  enjoy  your 
own  opinion.  It  is  not  within  our  province  to  judge  you. 
We  think  indeed  that  you  are  mistaken  ;  but  the  mis-  ' 
take  is  yours,  not  ours;  and  as  it  is  not  of  a  nature  to 
prevent  us  from  loving  and  embracing  you  as  Christians, 
it  shall  not  longer  interrupt  our  Christian  communion. 
Here,  brethren,  is  the  table  of  our  common  Lord.  Come 
and  partake  of  it  if  you  choose  ;  and  if  you  have  mistaken 
the  nature  of  the. previous  ordinance,  you  must  settle  it 
with  Christ,  and  not  with  us.' — With  an  invitation  such 
as  this,  Pedobaptists  would  be  perfectly  satisfied.  If  they 
are  in  error,  they  do  not  wish  their  brethren  to  be  partak- 
ers with*  them  in  the  error.  If  they  have  in  anything 
mistaken  the  will  of  Christ,  they  choose  to  assume  the  re- 
sponsibility themselves,  and  to  refer  the  matter  directly  to 
him. 


166  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

It  may  be  inquired  here,  whether'  Pedobaptists  would 
not  act  on  the  same  principle  with  those  of  the  strict 
communion,  and  exclude  from  the  Lord's  Table,  under 
all  circumstances,  those  whom  they  regarded  as  unbap- 
tized  1  And  if  I  may  be  allowed  to  speak  in  the  name 
of  my  brethren,  I  answer  confidently,  no.  Were  a  per- 
son to  request  communion  with  us,  who  professed  to  love 
and  prize  the  Ordinance  of  baptism ;  who  sincerely 
thought  he  had  been  baptized  ;  and  who  gave  evidence  of 
being  prepared  to  enjoy  spiritual  communion  with  Christ; 
we  should  certainly  admit  him,  although  wc  might  regard 
his  baptism  as  a  .nullity.  And  such  cases  not  unfrequent- 
ly  occur  at  the  present  time  in  our  churches.  Some  of 
our  brethren  consider  the  baptisms  which  were  formerly 
administered  on  the  ground  of  the  half-way  covenant  as 
invalid  ;.  and  more  have  the  same  opinion. in  regard  to 
the  baptisms  of  Catholics  and  Unitarians.  But  should  a 
pious*godly  professor  of  religion,  who  had  been  bap'tized 
in  either  of  these  ways,  and  was  satisfied  with  what  had 
been  done,  request  to  come  to  the  Lord's  Table  with  us, 
we  should  certainly  admit  him,  whatever  opinion  we 
might  entertain  respecting  the  validity  of  his  baptism. 
If  he  was  seriously  and  conscientiously  satisfied  on  the 
subject,  we  should  not  undertake  to  judge  betwixt  him 
and  his  Master,  but  should  leave  the  question  of  his  bap? 
tism  to  be  determined  at  a  higher  tribunal. 

But  it  will  be  inquired  again  by-  those  on  the  other 
side, '  As  we  regard  baptism,  both  in  the  order  of  nature 
and  by  divine  appointment,  as  pre-requisite  to  commun- 
ion, and  regard  Pedobaptists,  however  sincere  they  may 
be,  as  unbaptized  ;  how  can  we  receive  them  to  com- 
munion, without  becoming  partakers  of  their  sin  V  And 
to  this  question  I  reply  by  asking  another,  Are  you  sure 
that  Pedobaptists  commit  siri'm  coming  to  the  Lord's  Ta- 
ble, even  on  supposition  that  they  have  misapprehended 


CLOSE    (JOMMUNION.  167 

» 

the  nature  of  baptism  1  They  have  received  what  they 
most  seriously  believe  to  be  Christian  baptism,  and  feel 
under  solemn  obligations  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table  in 
remembrance  of  him.  And  now  what  shall  they  do? 
Can  you  in  conscience  affirm  that  it  will  be  sinful  for 
them  to  come  ?  On  the  contrary, *as  they  view  the  sub- 
ject, will  it  not  be  sinful  for  them  to  stay  away  ? — Bat  I 
hardly  need  ask  questions  such  as  these,  as  the  more  re- 
cent and  intelligent  advocates  of  close  communion  have 
already  decided  them.  Mr.  Fuller  says  expressly,  "On 
their  own  principles,  they  (Pedobaptists)  do  right  in  par- 
taking of  the  Lord's  Supper,  though  in  our  opinion  un- 
baptized  ;  their  conviction,  and  not  ours,  being  their 
proper  directory."*  Mr.  Kinghorn,  in  his  reply  to  Hall, 
takes" the  same  ground.  Now. this  is  all  which  need  be 
said  in  the  case.  .  If  Pedobaptists  were  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  table  with  Baptists,  they  would  come  ".on  their 
own  principles,"  and  in  compliance  with  their  own  con- 
victions of  duty  ;  and  consequently,  as  Mr.  F,  says,  they 
would  "  do  right" — they  would  not  sin — and  their  breth- 
ren in  admitting  them,  need  be  in  no  fear  of  becoming 
partakers  in  other  men's  sins. 

But  say  our  Baptists  friends  again,  'Should  we  not,  by 
such  a  procedure,  at  least  give  countenance  to  what  we 
conceive  to  be  an  error  V  And  I  answer,  Not  necessuri* 
hj.  It  being  known  at  the  time  that  you  do  not  coincide 
in  opinion  on  the  subject  of  Baptism  with  your  Pedobap- 
tist  brother,  but  merely  consent  that  he  shall  come  to  the 
table  with  you— on  his  own  principles  and  responsibility, 
and  in  compliance  with  his  own  convictions  of  duty — be- 
cause you  believe  he  is  one  who  has  communion  with  the 
Saviour ;  I  do  not  perceive  that  you  would  be  yiejding 
any  sinful  or  dangerous  countenance  to  what  you  believe 
to  be  his  errors.     And  I  would  with  deference  inquire, 

*  Conversations,  «Scc.  p.  32. 


1'68  CLOSE    COMMyNION. 

whether  you  do  not  come  to  the  same  conclusion,  in  re- 
gard to  most  other  unessential  points  of  difference  1 
Some  of  your  brethren  believe  the'  seventh  day  of  the 
week  to  be  the  Christian  Sabbath,  to  be  observed  accord- 
ing to  the -fourth  commandment.  Others  believe  that 
there  is  no  weekly  Sa*bbath  under  the  new  dispensation, 
but  that  (except  from  considerations  of  custom  and  ex- 
pediency) every  day  .should  be  regarded  alike*  Others 
still  believe,  that  if  God  has  called  a  person  to  preach  the 
Gospel,  he  will  give  him  the  requisite  qualifications,  and 
that  the  whole  system  of  educating  young  men  for  the 
ministry,  is  needless,  if  not  pernicious.  Now  would  you 
refuse  communion  to  these  several  classes  of  persons, 
however  pious  they  might  seem  to*  be,  and  however  un- 
questionable the  validity  of  their  baptism,  for  fear  oT giv- 
ing countenance  to  their  errors  ?  I  hope  not.  I  pre- 
sume not.  Because,  your  own  views  on  these  subjects 
being  known  and  understood,  you  would  not  necessarily 
give  any  countenance  to  their  errors.  It  would*  be  seen, 
that  you  merely  tolerated  the  persons,  because  you  be- 
lieved they  belonged  to  Christ,  while  you  disapproved  and 
rejected  what  you  conceived  to  be  their  errors,  and  pray- 
ed that  they  might  be  instructed  in  the  way  of  the  Lord 
more  perfectly.  And  on  the  same  ground,  why  may  you 
not  receive  the  pious  Pedobaptist,  without  giving  any  im- 
proper countenance  to  his  supposed  errors  ?  On  no  sub- 
ject are  your  views  more  fully  understood,  than  on  that 
of  baptism  ;  and  the  only  inference  which  could  justly 
be  drawn  from  the  fact  of  your  receiving  the  Pedobaptist 
would  be,  that  you  were  willing  to  have  communion  with 
him,  because  you  believed  he  belonged  to  Christ,  at  the 
same  time  that  you  deplored  what  you  deemed  his  errors, 
and  prayed  that  he  might  be  instructed  in  the  way  of  the 
Lord  more  perfectly.  And  I  may  leave  it  to  your  own 
consciences  to  decide,  whether  such  an  inference   would 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  169 

be  disgraceful  to  you  as  Christians,  or  dishonorable  to  re- 
ligion, or  of  dangerous  consequence  to  the  church  of 
Christ. 

In  conclusion,  I  can  assure  my  Baptist  readers,  that  I 
have  pressed  this   subject   upon   their  consideration,  not 
from  motives  of  personal  or   sectarian  interest,  but  solely 
from  a  regard  to   the   cause  of  religion,  and   the  general 
interests  of  Christ's   kingdom.     I   dwell  among  my  own 
people,  and   have  no   expectation  that   I  shall  ever  have 
occasion  to  ask  or  receive   communion    with  a  Baptist 
church, — though  I    would   gladly  do  it,   should  the  occa- 
sion be  presented.     And  when  I  look  at  the  Pedobaptist 
churches,   and   consider   their    increase,  their   numbers, 
and  strength  ;  I  feel  under  no  apprehension  of  their  rela- 
tively suffering  from  a  continuance   of  the   present  sys- 
tem.    I  have   no  doubt  that  they  can  live  separate  from 
the  Baptists,  as   well  as  the  Baptists  can   while   separate 
from  them.     And  I  have  no  doubt  that   both  denomina- 
tions can  live,  and  act,  and  do  some  good,  with  a  brazen 
wall  towering  between  them  from  earth  to  heaven.     But 
I  as   little   doubt,  that   both   denominations  might  live   a 
great  deal  better,  and  act  more  efficiently,  and  accomplish 
more  in  the  cause  of  Christ,  if  this  brazen  wall  could  be 
demolished  ;  or   at  least   if  pass-ways    could    be  opened 
through  it,  so  that  there  might  be  occasional  communica- 
tion one  way  and   the  other.     What  God  has  joined  to- 
gether seems  now  to  be  unwarrantably  put  asunder.   The 
body  of  Christ  is  divided  and  dismembered.     Those  who 
ought  to  have  a  common  interest,  have  separate  interests. 
Those  between  whom  there   ought   to  be  the  best  under- 
standing, and  a  spirit  of  mutual  accommodation  and  sym- 
pathy, are  often  seen  interfering  with  each  other's  plans, 
and  running  in   each    other's  way.     Those  who  ought  to 
put  forth  their  united  strength  '  against  principalities  and 
powers,  against  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world, 
15 


170  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

against  spiritual  wickedness  in  high  places,'  are  too  often 
found  turning  away  from  the  common  enemy,  and  wast- 
ing their  energies  one  upon  another.  God  has  indeed 
been  very  gracious  to  us  in  pouring  out  his  Spirit  upon 
our  churches ;  but  not  unfrequently,  in  the  midst  of 
a  revival  of  religion,  a  sectarian  spirit  shows  itself,  and 
the  Comforter  is  grieved  away. 

Christian  brethren  on  both  sides,  these  things  ought 
not  so  to  be.  And  the  period,  as  I  think  has  arrived, 
when  they  cannot  so  continue  but  a  little  longer.  We 
are  obviously  living  in  the  near  approach  of  the  Millen- 
nium,—  in  the  last  days,  when  a  tremendous  conflict  is  to 
be  expected  between  the  friends  and  the  enemies  of  God. 
Things  are  manifestly  preparing,  not  only  in  our  own 
country,  but  in  Europe,  and  in  heathen  lands,  for  such  a 
conflict.  In  our  present  divided  state,  are  we  prepared 
to  meet  it  ?  And  is  it  not  high  time  that  effectual  meas- 
ures were  taken,  to  bring  down  the  mountains,  and  raise 
the  vallies,  and  thus  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord  ?  If 
we  longer  neglect  to  take  such  measures  ourselves,  God 
may  be  expected  in  righteous  judgment  to  take  them  for 
us.  He  may  so  heat  the  furnace  of  his  providence,  as  to 
melt  down  all  our  minor  distinctions.  He  may  draw  a 
band  of  fire  around  his  church,  till  its  members  come  to 
feel  and  act  as  one  body. 

As  Evangelical  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  seem  not 
likely  to  agree  at  present  in  regard  to  one  of  the  special 
ordinances  of  the  Gospel,  but  do  agree  in  regard  to  the 
nature  and  obligations  of  the  other,  I  can  see  no  good 
reason  why  they  should  not,  occasionally  at  least,  partake 
of  the  latter  ordinance  together.  In  this  way  they  would 
wipe  off  much  of  the  reproach  which  now  attaches  to 
them,  and  manifest  to  the  world  that,  notwithstanding  re- 
maining differences,  they  do  feel,  and  are  resolved  to 
act,  as  the  disciples  of  a  common   Saviour.     I  know,  in- 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  171 

deed,  if  this  point  were  gained,  that  much  wisdom  and 
grace  would  still  be  needed,  in  order  to  secure  and  per- 
petuate peace.  For  combustible  materials  would  remain 
on  both  sides,  in  the  midst  of  which  discordant  spirits 
might  scatter  their  firebrands,  and  easily  blow  them  to  a 
flame.  But  Christian  love  would  overcome  all  difficulties, 
and  quench  the  latent  sparks  of  contention  before  they 
were  kindled.  By  the  removal  of  close  communion,  one 
source  of  contention  in  the  church  would  be  dried  up, 
and  one  effectual  step  would  be  taken  towards  a  complete 
and  final  union.  The  parties,  by  being  brought  into 
more  intimate  relations,  would  be  in  a  better  situation  to 
dispose  of  remaining  differences;  and  the  Saviour,  who 
prayed  so  fervently  while  on  earth  for  the  peac,e  of  his 
followers,  might  be  expected  to  approve  and  bestow  his 
blessing. 


APPENDIX. 


[Note  A.] 

The  following  pertinent  remarks  are  from  Dr.#Samuel 
Austin's  Rejoinder  in  his  controversy  with  Mr.  Merrill. 
"  In  beseiged  cities,  where  there  are  thousands  and  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  people;  in  sandy  deserts,  like  those 
of  Africa,  Arabia,  and  Palestine ;  in  the  northern  regions, 
where  the  streams,  if  there  be  any,  are  shut  up  with  im- 
penetrable ice ;  and  in  severe  and  extensive  droughts, 
like  that  which  took  place  in  the  time  of  Ahab ;  sufficiency 
of  water  for  animal  subsistence  is  scarcely  to  be  procur- 
ed. Now  suppose  God  should,  according  to  his  predic- 
tions, pour  out  plentiful  effusions  of  his  Spirit,  so  that  all 
the  inhabitants  of  one  of  these  regions  or  cities  should  be 
born  in  a  day.  Upon  the  Baptist  hypothesis,  there  is  an 
absolute  impossibility  that  they  should  be  baptized,  while 
there  is  this  scarcity  of  water,  and  this  may  last  as  long 
as  they  live."     p.  41. 


[Note  B.] 

The  following  remarks  of  Professor  Stuart,  on  Rom. 
vi.  4,  will  be  read  with  interest  by  every  candid  inquirer. 

"  We  have  been  buried  with  him,  then,  by  baptism  into 
his  death  ;  i.  e.  we  are  (by  being  baptized  into  his  death) 
.buried  as  he  was,  owej6.(pr)nept  where  ow  means  like,  in 
like  manner  with. 

"  Most  commentators  have  maintained,  that  ovvst&cpri~ 
f*et>  has  here  a  necessary  reference  to  the  mode  of  literal 
*15 


174  APPENDIX. 

baptism,  which,  they  say,  was  by  immersion;  and  this, 
they  think,  affords  ground  for  the  employment  of  the  im- 
age used  by  the  Apostle,  because  immersion  (under  water) 
may  be  compared  to  burial  (under  the  earth.)  It  is  diffi- 
cult, perhaps,  to  procure  a  patient  re-hearing  for  this  sub- 
ject, so  long  regarded  by  some  as  being  out  of  fair  dispute. 
Nevertheless,  as  my  own  conviction  is  not,  after  protract- 
ed and  repeated  examinations,  accordant  here  with  that 
of  commentators  in  general,  I  feel  constrained  briefly  to 
state  my  reasons. 

"  The  first  is,  that  in  the  verse  before  us  there  is  a  plain 
antithesis ;  one  so  plain  that  it  is  impossible  to  overlook 
it.  If  now  avrsTucpij/iiEv  is  to  be  interpreted  in  a  physical 
way,"i.  e.  as  meaning  baptism  in  a  physical  sense,  where 
is  the  corresponding  -physical  idea,  in  the  opposite  part  of 
the  antithesis  or  comparison  ?  Plainly  there  is  no  such 
"physical  idea  or  reference  in  the  other  part  of  the  antith- 
esis. The'  resurrection  there  spoken  of,  is  entirely  a 
moral,  spiritual  one  ;  for  it  is  one  which  Christians  have 
already  experienced,  during  the  present  life  ;  as  may  be 
fully  seen  by  comparing  vs.  5,  11,  below.  I  take  it  for 
granted,  that  after  ^)fi^?  in  v.  4,  tyegdivieg  is  implied ; 
since  the  nature  of  the  comparison,  the  preceding  ck: 
fyyigdr}  Xgtoiog,  and  v.  5,  make  this  entirely  plain. 

"  If  we  turn  now  to  the  passage  in  Col.  ii.  12,  (which 
is  altogether  parallel  with  the  verse  under  examination, 
and  has  very  often  been  agitated  by  polemic  writers  on 
the  subject  of  baptism,)  we  shall  there  find  more  conclu- 
sive reason  still,  to  argue  as  above  respecting  the  nature 
of  the  antithesis  preseuted.  "We  have  been  buried  with 
him  [Christ]  by  baptism."  What  now  is  the  ojyposite  of 
this  1  What  is  the  kind  of  resurrection  from  this  grave 
in  which  Christians  have  been  buried  1  The  Apostle 
tells  us:  ."We  have  risen  with  him  [Christ,]  by  faith 
wrought  by  the  power  of  God  [rfjc  ivsgyelag  tov  0£oO,].who 
raised  him  [Christ]  from  the  dead."  Here,  there  is  a 
resurrection  by  faith,  i.  e.  a  spiritual,  moral  one.  Why 
then  should  we  look  for  a.  physical  meaning  in  the  antith- 
esis 1  If  one  part  of  the  antithesis  is  to  be  construed  in 
a  manner  entirely  moral  or  spiritual,  why  should  we  not 
construe  the  other  in  the  like  manner  1  To  understand 
ovvei<b<p7][xep,  then,  of  a  literal  burial  under  water,  is  to 


APPENDIX.  175 

understand  it  in  a  manner  which  the  laws  of  interpreta- 
tion appear  to  forbid. 

"Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  the  word  awex&- 
xpftftev,  in  Rom.  vi.  4,  is  equivalent  in  sense  to  the  word 
bned'crouev  in  v.  8.  It  seems  to  be  adopted  merely  for 
the  sake  of  rendering  more  striking  the  image  of  a  resur- 
rection, which  the  Apostle  employs  in  the  other  part  of 
the  antithesis.  A  resurrection  from  the  grave  is  a  natu- 
ral phrase,  when  one  is  speaking  with  respect  to  the  sub- 
ject of  a  resurrection ;  see  John  v.  28,  29;  comp.  Dan. 
xii.  2.  In  accordance  with  this  statement,  the  context 
does  most  plainly  speak,  both  in  respect  to  Rom.  vi.  4, 
and  Col.  ii.  12.  For  in  respect  to  Rom.  vi.  4,  the  Apos- 
tle goes  on  in  the  very  next  verse,  (as  is  usual  with  him,) 
to  present  the  same  idea  which  is  contained  in  v.  4,  in  a 
different  costume.  V.  .5  (which  is  a  mere  epexegesis  of 
v.  4)  says  :  If  toe  have  been  homogeneous  (trtifHpvtoi  like, 
of  the  same  kind)  with  Christ  in  his'death,  then  shall 
we  be  in  his  resurrection.  The  same- idea 'and  explana- 
tion is  repeated  in  v.  8 — inedivoftev — avtrfoofiev ,  and  the 
whole  is  summarily  explained  in  v.  11;  So  reckon  ye 
yourselves  to  be    vexqoiig  (ihv  trji  dfiagjlcf,  tjStvzag  Si  kS 

"  Exactly  in  the  same  manner  has  the  Apostle  gone  on 
to  explain  avfiTatp&vreg  in  Col.  ii.  12.  In  v.  13  he  adds: 
You  vexQoig  in  your  offences*.  .  .  .  crvvetpmnolijcre,  has  he 
[God]  made  alive  with  him  [Christ]  having  forgiven  us 
all  our  offences. 

"  There  can  be  no  real  ground  for  question,  then,  that 
by  ovftBT(kqnj/j,ev ,  in  both  cases,  is  meant  neither  more  nor 
less  than  by  unduro/ifr,  vexgol,  etc.  The  epexegesis  ad- 
ded in  both  cases,  seems  to  make  this  quite  plain. 

"  The  only  reason,  then,  which  I  can  find,  why  ows- 
T&q>t](tev  is  preferred  in  Rom.  vi.  4,  and  in  Col.  ii.  12,  is, 
as  has  been  suggested  above,  that  the  language  may  be  a 
fuller  antithesis  of  the  word  resurrection,  which  is  em- 
ployed in  the  corresponding  part  of  the  comparison. 
"  You  who  were  [dead]  buried  with  Christ,"  gives  ener- 
gy to  the  expression.  • 

(c)  "  But  my  principal  difficulty  in  respect  to  the  usual 
exegesis  of  awexutp^nev  is,  that  the  image  or  figure  of  im- 
mersion, baptism,  is,  so  far  as  I  know,  no  where  else  in 
Scripture  employed  as  a  symbol  of  burial  in  the  grave. 
Nor  can  I  think  that  it  is  a  very  natural  symbol  of  burial. 


76  APPENDIX. 

The  obvious  import  of  washing  tvith  water,  or  immersing 
in  water,  is,  that  it  is  symbolical  of  purity,  cleansing,  pu- 
rification. But  how  will  this  aptly  signify  burying  in  the 
grave,  the  place  of  corruption,  loathsomeness,  and  de- 
struction ? 

"  For  these  reasons,  I  feel  inclined  to  doubt  the  usual 
exegesis  of  the  passage  before  us,  and  to  believe  that  the 
Apostle  had  in  view  only  a  burying  which  is  moral  and 
spiritual ;  for  the  same  reasons  that  he  had  a  moral  and 
spiritual  (not  a  physical)  resurrection  in  view,  in  the  cor- 
responding part  of  the  antithesis. 

"  Indeed,  what  else  but  a  moral  burying  can  be  meant, 
when  the  Apostle  goes  on  to  say  :  We  are  buried  with 
him  [not  by  baptism  only,  but]  by  baptism  into  his 
death?  Of  course,  it  will  not  be  contended,  that  a  lite- 
ral physical  burying  is  here  meant,  but  only  a  moral  one. 
And  although  the  words,  into  his  death,  are  not  inserted 
in  Col.  ii.  12;  yet,  as  the  following  verse  there  shows, 
they  are  plainly  implied.  In  fact  it  is  plain,  that  refer- 
ence is  here  made  to  baptism,  because,  when  that  rite 
was  performed,  the  Christian  promised  to  renounce  sin 
and  to  mortify- all  his  evil  desires,  and  thus  to  die  unto 
sin  that  he  might  live  unto  God.  I  cannot  see,  there- 
fore, that  there  is  any  more  necessary  reference  here  to 
the  modus  of  baptism,  than  there  is  to  the  modus  of  the 
resurrection.  The  one  may  as  well  be  maintained  as  the 
other. 

"  I  am  aware,  however,  that  one  may  say  :  '  I  admit 
that  the  burial  with  Christ  has  a  moral  sense,  and  only 
such  an  one  ;  but  then  the  language  in  which  this  idea 
is  conveyed  (av/neiucpij/nev,)  is  evidently  borrowed  from 
the  custom  of  immersion.'  In  reply  to  this,  I  would  refer 
to  the  considerations  under  (c)  above.  The  possibility 
of  the  usage  I  admit;  but  to  show  that  the  image  is  nat- 
ural, and  obvious,  and  that  it  is  a  part  of  Scripture  usage 
elsewhere,  is  what  seems  important,  in  order  to  produce 
entire  satisfaction  to  the  mind  of  a  philological  inquirer. 
At  any  rate,  I  cannot  at  present  think  the  case  to  be 
clear  enough,  to  entitle  any  one  to  employ  this  passage 
with  confidence,  in  a  contest  respecting  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism."— Commentary  on  Romans,  p.  252 — 255. 


APPENDIX.  177 

[Note   C] 

"  It  is  very  common,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "to  speak 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  churches,  as  if  they  were 
quite  distinct  from  each  other  ;  as  if,  when  the  latter  was 
introduced,  the  former  had  been  entirely  removed,  and 
succeeded  by  something  totally  new.  But  this  is  far  from 
being  the  style  in  which  the  matter  is  represented,  either 
in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  or  in  the  New.  In 
both,  the  ancient  church  is  spoken  of,  not  as  annihilated, 
and  succeeded  by  another,  but  as  visited,  comforted,  pu- 
rified, raised  up,  and  gloriously  restored  from  decline  and 
corruption.  If  in  some  passages  the  idea  of  complete 
renovation  appears  to  be  suggested,  we  need  not  be  sur- 
prised that  such  language  should  be  applied  to  a  change 
in  the  state  of  the  church  so  remarkable, — to  a  revival  so 
eminently  glorious.  The  prosperity  of  the  church  in  the 
latter  days  is  represented  by  the  "  creation  of  new  hea- 
vens and  a  new  earth,  so  that  the  former  should  not  be 
remembered,  nor  come  into  mind." — If  such  language  is 
employed  to  elevate  our  conceptions  and  anticipations  of 
that  blessed  era,  we  might  surely  expect  terms  somewhat 
similar  to  be  used,  in  reference  to  the  time  when  "God 
was  to  be  manifested  in  the  flesh,"  "  a  light  to  lighten 
the  Gentiles,  and  the  glory  of  his  people  Israel." 

"  The  fact  is,  that  when  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament predict  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  at  the  fulness 
of  time,  they  represent  them  as  brought  in  to  the  previ- 
ously existing  church,  although  in  its  renovated  and  re- 
modelled state  : — and  when  the  prophets  of  the  New 
Testament  foretell  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  it  is  under 
the  idea  of  being  brought  in  again  to  the  same  church 
from  which,  on  account  of  their  unbelief,  they  had  been 
ejected." — Dissertation  on  Infant  Baptism,  p.  63, 


[Note  D.] 


"  I  entirely  agree,"  says  Mr.  Carson,  "  with  those  who 
consider  this  covenant  (the  covenant  with  Abraham)  as 
having  a  letter  and  a  spirit.  For  the  accomplishment  of 
the  grand  promise,  that  all  nations  should   be  blessed   in 


178  APPENDIX. 

Abraham,  three  promises  were  given  to  him.  First,  a 
numerous  posterity  which  was  fulfilled  in  the  letter,  in 
the  nation  of  Israel.  It  was  fulfilled  in  the  spirit,  by  the 
divine  constitution,  that  makes  all  believers  the  children 
of  Abraham.  The  unbelieving  Jews  were  Abraham's 
children  as  to  the  flesh,  yet  there  is  a  sense  in  which 
Jesus  denies  that  they  were  the  children  of  Abraham. 
The  second  promise  was  to  be  a  God  to  him  and  his  seed, 
which  was  fulfilled  in  the  letter  by  his  protection  of  Isra- 
el in  Egypt, — his  delivering  of  them  from  bondage, — his 
taking  them  into  covenant  at  Sinai, — and  all  his  subse- 
quent dealings  with  them  in  their  generations,  till  they 
were  cast  off  by  their  rejection  of  Christ.  This  promise 
is  fulfilled  in  the  spirit,  by  God's  being  a  God  to  all  be- 
lievers, and  to  them  alone,  Rom.  iv.  11,  12,  in  a  higher 
sense  than  he  was  to  Israel,  Jer.  xxxi.  33".  The  third 
promise  was  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  fulfilled  in  the  letter 
to  Israel,  and  in  the  spirit  fulfilled  to  the  true  Israel  in 
the  possession  of  the  heavenly  inheritance.  In  accord- 
ance with  this  double  sense  of  the  promises  of  this  cove- 
nant, the  kingdom  of  God  in  Israel,  with  its  officers, 
laws,  worship,  &c.  is  a  visible  model  of  the  invisible 
kingdom  of  Christ.  The  typical  ordinances,  which  ex- 
hibited the  truths  of  the  gospel  in  figure,  form  one  of  the 
most  conclusive  evidences  of  Christianity  ;  and  present, 
spiritual  things  to  the  mind  in  so  definite  and  striking  a 
manner,  that  they  add  the  greatest  lustre  to  the  doctrines 
of  grace.  What  a  striking  emblem  of  the  incarnation 
have  we  in  God's  dwelling  in  the  tabernacle  and  temple ! 
How  clearly  do  we  see  substitution  and  imputation  in  the 
laying  on  of  hands  on  the  victim  !  How  blind  must  they 
be,  who  do  not  see  the  atonement  by  the  blood  of  Christ, 
in  the  sacrifices  of  Israel  ! 

"  This  appears  to  me  to  be  the  only  view  of  the  cove- 
nant of  Abraham,  that  will  suit  every  thing  said  of  it  in 
the  word  of  God.  That  it  has  a  letter  and  a  spirit,  is 
true,  and  analogous  to  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament," 
Carson  and  Cox  on  Baptism,  p.  344. 


APPENDIX.  179 

[Note  E.] 

The  following  remarks  are  from  the  pen  of  Rev. 
George  S.  Faber.  "  Circumcision  and  baptism  are  two 
sacramental  signs  of  exactly  the  same  import.  They 
must,  therefore,  to  all  affective  purposes,  be  mutually  the 
same  with  each  other :  For  a  sign  being  altogether  arbi- 
trary, if  it  had  pleased  God  to  shadow  out  regeneration 
by  a  hundred  different  signs,  all  these  hundred  signs 
would  still  constitute  but  a  single  sacrament."  Sermons, 
Vol.  i.  Sermon  ix. 

Dr.  Wardlaw  supposes,  that  besides  its  import  as  de- 
noting the  "putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh," 
circumcision  was,  in  all  probability,  intended  as  a  sign 
that  the  seed,  in  whom  all  nations  were  to  be  blessed, 
should  come  from  the  loins  of  Abraham.  Of  this  it  was  a 
significant  emblem  and  remembrancer.  The  promise  of 
the  Messiah  was  restricted  to  the  line  of  descent  by  Isaac. 
In  this  line,  therefore,  it  became  a  memorial  of  the  pro- 
mise that  Messiah  should  be  made  flesh  amongst  them. 
And  I  doubt  not  that,  in  other  lines  also  of  descent  from 
Abraham,  this  rite,  originally,  by  the  command*  of  God, 
administered  to  all  his  family,  had  its  influence,  in  a  gen- 
eral way,  in  preserving  the  idea  and  expectation  of  the 
promised  seed.  If  this  be  well  founded,  we  at  once  per- 
ceive a  good  reason  why  circumcision  should  be  abolished 
when  this  seed  came;  and  why  another  rite  should  be 
substituted  in  its  place,  which  continued  to  signify  as 
expressly,  or  more  so,  the  "  putting  off  the  body  of 
the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  wJiile  it  was  not  all  significant  of 
that  part  of  the  meaning  of  the  former  symbol,  which  had 
now  received  its  fulfilment.  Dissertation  on  Infant  Bap- 
tism, p.  28. 


[Note  F.] 


"  The  rite  of  Infant  Baptism,"  says  Dr.  Woods, 
"  manifestly  corresponds  with  the  natural  relation  between 
parents  and  children.  It  is  not  enough  to  say  that  there 
is  no  inconsistency  between  the  two  things,  and  that  the 
relation  of  parents  and   children  can  afford  no  objection 


180  APPENDIX. 

against  Infant  Baptism.  For  nothing  is  more  evident 
than  that  this  rite  has  a  perfect  suitableness  to  the  rela- 
tion of  parents  and  children.  This  relation  is  of  such  a 
nature  and  attended  with  such  circumstances,  that  Infant 
Baptism  becomes  obviously,  and  in  the  highest  degree, 
just  and  proper.  I  acknowledge  that  this  argument  does 
not,  by  itself,  prove  Infant  Baptism  to  have  been  appoint- 
ed by  God,  and  to  be  obligatory  upon  Christians.  But  it 
shows  at  least,  that,  if  God  was  pleased  to  appoint  it,  the 
appointment  must  be  regarded  as  having  a  perfect  fitness 
and  propriety."      Lectures  on  Infant  Baptism,  p.  26. 

Some  of  the  wiser  heathen  nations,  instructed  only  by 
nature  and  reason,  were  led  to  practice  a  rite  resembling 
infant  baptism,  "  It  was  the  custom  of  the  Romans,  on 
the  ninth  day  from  the  child's  birth  (which  was  called  the 
lustfical,  or  day  of  purification)  for  its  friends  and  rela- 
tives to  bring  it  to  the  temple,  and  before  the  altars  of  the 
gods  to  give  it  a  name,  and  recommend  it  to  the  protec- 
tion of  some  tutelar  deity."  A  ceremony  of  the  like  na- 
ture was  also  common  among  the  Greeks.  See  Middle- 
ton's  Life  oj  Cicero,   Vol*,  i.  p.  6. 


[Note  G.] 


Lightfoot,  after  having  established  the  fact  of  Proselyte 
baptism,  in  -his  Horre  Hebraicae  on  Matt.  iii.  6,  con- 
cludes his  argument  with  the  following  pertinent  remarks. 
"  Hence  we  see  the  reason  why,-  in  the  New  Testament, 
the  subjects  of  baptism  are  not  prescribed  by  a  more  ex- 
plicit rule.  The  Anabaptists  object,  It  is  not  commanded 
that  infants  should  be  baptized ;  therefore  they  should  not 
be  baptized.  But  I  say,  It  is  not  prohibited  that  infants 
should  be  baptized ;  therefore  they  should  be  baptized. 
And  the  reason  is  plain  ;  for  since  the  baptism  of  children 
was  familiarly  known  and  very  often  practised  in  the  Jew- 
ish church  in  the  admission  of  proselytes,  there  was  no 
need  that  it  should  be  confirmed  by  an  express  precept, 
when  baptism  came  to  be  an  evangelical  sacrament.  For 
Christ  took  baptism  into  his  hands,  and  into  evangelical 
use  as  he  found  it ;  with  this  diffeuence  only,  that  he  pro- 
moted it  to  a  more  worthy  end,  and  a  more  important 


APPENDIX.  181 

purpose.  The  whole  nation  knew  perfectly  well  that  lit- 
tle children  had  always  been  baptized.  That  he  had  no 
need  of  an  express  command,  which  was  in  common  and 
uniform  practice. 

Suppose  Christ  had  published  an  edict  in  these  words, 
Let  all  persons  assemble  on  the  Lord's  day  for  public  wor- 
ship in  the  church  ;  he  would  be  insane  who  should  thence 
infer  that  prayers,  and  preaching,  and  singing  of  praises 
were  not  to  be  celebrated  on  the  Lord's  day,  in  the  pub- 
lic assemblies,  because  there  was  no  mention  of  them  in 
the  edict.  For" the  edict  provides  for  the  public  observ- 
ance of  the  day  in  the  general ;  and  concerning  the  par- 
ticular forms  of  worship,  there  was  no  need  that  it  should 
make  provision,  these  being  well  known  and  in  constant 
use  at  the  time  when  the  edict  was  given.  But  this  pre- 
cisely illustrates  the  case  of  baptism,  when  established  by 
Christ  for  an  evangelical  sacrament,  by  which  all  should 
be  admitted  to  a  profession  of  the  gospel,  as  proselytes  had 
been  admitted  to  the  religion  of  the  Jews.  In  regard  to 
particulars,  such  as  the  mode  of  baptizing,  and  the  age 
and  sex  of  those  to  be  baptized,  there  was  no  need  of  an 
express  rule,  because  these  were  sufficiently  known  from 
common  use. 

On  the  contrary  ;  there  was  need  of  a  plain  and 
open  prohibition,  if  our  Saviour  designed  that  infants 
should  not  be  baptized.  For  when  through  all  preceding 
ages,  their  baptism  had  been  in  common  use,  if  he  had 
intended  that  the  custom  should  be  abolished,  he  would 
have  expressly  prohibited  it.  His  silence,  therefore,  and 
that  of  Scriptute  in  this  matter,  confirms  Ptdobaptism  and 
establishes  it,  in  all  succeeding  ages." 

To  the  same  purpose  are  the  following  remarks  of  Wet- 
stein,  in  his  Commentary  on  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  "  In  this 
passage,  which  contains  the  institution  of  baptism,  a  lax 
and  mild  exposition  of  the  word  (ladrjie^aare  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  a  rigid,  straight-laced  interpretation  ;  and  that 
this  kind  of  interpretation  was  adopted  by  the  Apostles,  I 
make  no  doubt.  For  since  they  could  not  be  ignorant 
that  the  boys  and  infants  of  Jews  were  to  be  circumcised, 
so  as  to  become  Jews,  and  be  brought  into  covenant,  and 
that  the  boys  and  infants  of  Gentile  proselytes  were  not 
only  themselves  called  proselytes,  and  circumcised,  but 
were  also  baptized,  as  I  have  before  fully  proved  ;  I  do 
16 


182  APPENDIX. 

not  see  how  it  could  enter  into  their  thoughts  to  expunge 
boys  and  infants  from  the  list  of  disciples,  or  from  baptism, 
unless  they  had  been  cxclucleel  by  the  express  injunctions  of 
Christ,  which  we  nowhere  find  1" 


[Note  H.] 


It  will  be  said,  perhaps,  that  the  command  to  teach,  or 
(juadevTeauT?)  disciple  the  nations,  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19, 
necessarily  limits  the  subsequent  command  to  baptize 
them.  None  can  properly  be  baptized,  but  those  who. 
have  already  become  disciples.  And  what  is  it  to  be- 
come a  disciple  ?  Is  it  not  to  become  a  pupil,  a  learner  1 
Those,  therefore,  who  have  become  learners,  or  are 
placed  in  a  situation  to  be  learners,  in  the  things  per- 
taining to  the  kingdom  of  Christ  (and  such  certainly  are 
all  the  children  of  faithful,  covenanting  parents)  may  with 
the  strictest  propriety  be  denominated  disciples.  Thus 
Timothy  was  a  disciple  ((moftgecpovg)  from  his  infancy. 
2  Tim.  iii.  15.  And  Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  some,  "  who 
had  been  made  disciples  to  Christ  (fx  nuiduu  )  from  their 
childhood."  Apol.  i.  Among  the  Jews,  not  only  were 
those  called  disciples  who  had  been  taught,  but  those  who 
came  into  a  situation  to  be  taught.  "  Make  me  a  prose- 
lyte, said  a  Gentile  to  Hillel,  that  thou  mayest  teach  me." 
Bab.  Talmud. 

Wetstein  makes  three  classes  of  disciples,  viz  :  (rav 
fuadi»i'Th)v,  rwv  ftui'doi'TD)!' ,  y.uv  twv  fiadrjaofievwv)  those 
having  been  taught,  those  being  taught,  and  those  to  be 
taught.  "  Certainly,"  he  says,  "  a  person  may  be  made 
any  one's  disciple,  either  when  he  knowingly  and  volun- 
tarily, of  his  own  judgment  and  will,  commits  himself  to 
any  one  for  instruction  ;  or  when,  by  his  parents  or 
guardians,  in  whose  power  he  is  placed,  he  is  so  committed 
and  entrusted.  And  he  who  is  receiving„his^/?V.s£  lesson  is 
as  much  a  disciple,  as  he  who  has  attended  on  the  whole 
course  of  instruction.  Nay,  he  who  is  committed  by  his 
father  to  the  care  of  any  master,  is  already  his  disciple, 
before  he  has  been  taught  his  first  lessons."  Com.  on 
Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

But  if  this  sense  of  the  term  disciple  should  be  reject- 


APPENDIX.  183 

ed,  it  is  believed  the  command  of  our  Saviour  is  perfectly 
consistent,  and  (considering  the  circumstances  under 
which  it  was -uttered)  is  alone  consistent,  with  Pedobap.- 
tism.  'Go  ye  and  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
and  their  children  (according  to  the  known  and  establish- 
ed custom  in  the  case  of  circumcision,  and  in  the  recep- 
tion of  proselytes)  into  the  name  of  the"  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Situated  as  the 
Apostles  were,  it  seems  they  must  have  understood  their 
Lord's  precept  with  this  latitude.  I  see  not  how  they 
could  have  interpreted  it  in  any  other  manner. 

It  has  been  said,  also,  that  the  requisition  of  faith  in 
order  to  baptism  necessarily  limits  the  command  to  bap- 
tize. But  of  whom  is  this  requisition  made  ?  Of  adult 
•persons  or  infants?  Of  adults  certainly,  as  they  alone 
are  capatffe  of  understanding  and  complying  with  it.  Of 
course,  it  has  no  respect  to  infants;  and  it  is  just  such  a 
requisition  as  all  Evangelical  Pedobiptists  make,  when 
addressing  that  class  of  persons  to  whom  it  was  addressed 
by  the  Apostles,  We  all  say,  when  addressing  on  baptiz- 
ed adults,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  "  If  thou  belie  vest  with 
all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest."      Acts  ii.  38:  viii.  37. 

It  is  admitted,  on  all  sides,  that  "Cyprian,  the-renerable 
Bishop  of  Carthawe,  was  a  Pedobaptist.  Yet  he  ur^ed 
the  necessity  of  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptism, 
just  as  the  apostles  did,  and  as  Evangelical  Pedobaptists 
do  in  our  own  times.  He  says  those  out  of  Christ  will 
perish,  "  unless  they  co.me  with  repentance  to  that  only 
salutary  sacrament  of  the  churchj" — meaning  baptism." 
Epis.  75. 

The  remarks  of  Dr.  Woods,  in  reply  to  this  objection, 
are  judicious  and  conclusive.  "Of  whom  was  faith  re- 
quired iq  order  to  Baptism  1  ■  Of  those,  evidently,  who 
were  capable  of  understanding  the  nature  of  the  requisi- 
tion. The  command. to  believe  could  relate  to  no  other. 
This  was  so  perfectly  obvious,  that  no  teacher  of  Chris- 
tianity could-  have  any  occasion*  to  mention  it.  This 
command,  or  any .  other  command,  coining  from  a  just 
God,  must  be  understood  as  relating  to  those  only,  who 
were  capable  of  complying  with  it.  So  that  the  fact, 
stated  exactly,  was  this  ;  those  who  were  capable  of  believ- 
ing, that  is,  adult  persons  were  required  to  believe,  in  order 


184  APPENDIX. 

to  be  baptized.  A  requisition,  not  unlike  this,  was  made 
under  the  former  dispensation.  Adult  persons,  in  order 
to  be  admitted  by  circumcision  into  the  society  of  God's 
people  were  required  to  renounce  idolatry,  to  believe  in 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  to  submit  to  the  institutions 
and  laws  which  he  gave  by  Moses.  Such  faith  as  this, 
under  the  316suic  economy,  answered  to  the  faith  which 
is  required  under  the  Christian  economy.  The  requisi- 
tion of  faith,  then,  in  order  to  Baptism,  has  nothing  new 
in  it,  but  this,  that  the  faith  required  is  to  be  adapted  to 
the  circumstances  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  4Vhere- 
as  the  faith  required  before,  was  to  be  adapted  to  the  Mo- 
saic dispensation.  Thus,  in  regard  to  adult  persons,  the 
case  is  very  similar  under  both  dispensations.  How  then 
can  the  fact,  that  Christ  required  adult  persons  to  believe- 
in  order  to  be  baptized,  prove  that  Baptism  *was  to  be 
more  limited  in  its  application,  than  circumcision  1" 
Lectures  on  Infant  Baptism,  p.  157. 


[Note  I.] 


"  It  is-a  remarkable  fact,"  says  Dr.  Wardlaw,  "  that 
we  have  no  mention  of  any  thing  resembling  the  baptism 
of  households  or  families,  in  the  accounts  of  the  propa- 
gation of  the  gospel  by  our  Baptist  brethren.  That  the 
apostles  baptized  families,  no  believer  of •  the  scripture 
history  can  doubt ;  and  we  have  seen,  that  the  manner  in 
which  such  baptisms  are  recorded,  or  referred  to,  indi- 
cates no  extraordinary  thing.  Now  it  surely  is  an  extra- 
ordinary thing,  that  in  the  journals  and  periodical  ac- 
counts of  Baptist  missions  in  heathen  countries,'we  should 
never  meet  with  any  thing  of  the  kind.  I  question, 
whether,  in  the  thirty  years  of  the  history  of  the  Baptist 
mission  in  India,  there  is  to  be  found  a  single  instance  of 
the  baptism  of  a  household.  When  do  we  find  a  Baptist 
missionary  saying,  "  When  she  was  baptized  and  her 
family" — or,  "  I  baptized  the  family  of  Krishnoo,"  or  any 
other  convert?  We  have  the  baptism  of  individuals ; 
but  nothing  corresponding  to  the  apostolic  baptism  of 
families.  This  fact  "is  a  strong  corroborative  proof,  that 
there  is  some  difference  between  their  practice  and  that 
of  the  apostles.     If  the  practice  of  both  were  the  same, 


APPENDIX.  185 

there  might  surely  be  expected  some  little  correspondence 
in  the  facts  connected  with  it."  Dissertation  on  Infant 
Baptism,  p.  109. 


[Note  J.] 

It  has  been  often  said  that  the  ancient  Britons  did  not 
baptize  their  children  ;  and  that  they  were  persuaded  to 
commence  baptizing  them  by  Augustine,  a  Benedictine 
monk,  in  the  sixth  century.  But  these  assertions  have 
been  shown  to  be  without  foundation.  The  mistake 
arose  from  an  imperfect  quotation  of  the  history  of  the 
venerable  Bede.  Bede  represents  Augustine  as  requir- 
ing the  Britons  to  "  perform  the  office  of  baptizing,  ac- 
cording to  the  custom  of  the  Romish  church."  But  he  is 
falsely  quoted  by  Fabian  as  saying,  that  Augustine  re- 
quired the  Britons  to  "give  Christendom  to  their  chil- 
dren ;" — from  which  quotation  it  has  been  inferred  that, 
previously,  they  did  not  "  give  Christendom  to  their  chil- 
dren.". 

If  this  pretence  needed  further  refutation,  we  might 
recur  to  the  testimony  of  Pelagius,  who  was  born  and 
bred  in  Britain,  and  was  perfectly  acquainted  with  the 
customs  of  Christians  in  that  country.  Yet  he  affirms 
that  he  "  never  heard  of  any,  not  even  the  most  impious 
heretic,  who  denied  baptism  to  infants." 

It  has  been  said,  also,  that  the  Wahlenses  did  hot  bap- 
tize their  children.  This  assertion  is  founded  chiefly  on 
the  testimony  of  the  Romanists,  and  may  have  arisen 
from  the  unwillingness  of  that  persecuted  people  to  suf- 
fer their  children  to  be  baptized  by  the  Romish  priests. — 
That  the  great  body  of  the  Waldenses  practised  infant 
baptism,  we  have  conclusive  evidence  in  their  own  stand- 
ard writings.  The  following  passages  are  from  a  Wal- 
densian  Catechism,  supposed  to  have  been  written  as  ear- 
ly as  A.  D.  1100.  "  There  are  two  sacraments,  one  of 
water,  and  the  other  of  aliment,  that  is,  of  bread  and 
wine.  The  first  is  called  baptism,  or  in  our  language  a 
icashing  with  water,  whether  of  a  river  or  a  fountain  ; 
and  it  must  be  administered  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  "  Children  are 
*16 


186  APPENDIX. 

to  be  presented  for  battism  ;  and  this  should  be 
done  by  them  to  whom  they  are  most  nearly  related,  such 
as  parents,  or  those  to  whom  God  has  given  this  office  of 
love." 

Dr.  Murdock,  in  the  notes  to  his  translation  of  Mos- 
heim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  says,  "  That  the  Mennon- 
ites"  (or  Continental  Anabaptists)  "  in  most  of  the  points 
in  which  they  appeared  singular  among  Protestants,  hore 
a  nearer  resemblance  to  the  proper  Waldenses,  the  Wick- 
liffites,  and  the  Hussites,  than  the  other  Protestants,  or 
the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  did,  is  very  far  from 
being  true.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  a  well  known  historic 
fact,  that  in  the  sixteenth  century,  the  genuine  descend- 
ants of  the  old  Waldensians,  Wickliffites,  and  Hussites, 
who  were  numerous  in  France,  England,  Bohemia,  Mo- 
ravia, &c.  readily  united  with  the  Lutheran  and  Reform- 
ed communities,  and  at  length  became  absorbed  in  them  ; 
and  that  very  few,  if  any,  of  them  ever  manifested  a 
preference  for  the  Mennonites,  or  for  any  of  the  Antipe- 
dobaptist  sects  of  that  age.  The  history  of  the  Refor- 
mation, in  all  the  countries  where  these  ancient  sects 
were  found  fully  establishes  this  fact,  which  is  so  adverse  to 
the  supposition  of  a  legitimate  descent  of  the  Mennonites 
from  the  pure  Waldensians.  The  first  Mennonites  were 
not  persons  who  had  before  borne  the  name  of  Walden- 
sians, or  who  were  known  descendants  of  Waldensians  ; 
nor  did  they  originate  either  in  or  near  the  countries 
where  the  Waldensians  in  that  age  resided.  And  if  we 
endeavor  to  trace  the  history  of  that  grand  peculiarity  of 
all  Mennonites,  their  confining  baptism  to  adult  believers, 
and  rejecting  infant  baptism  altogether,  we  shall  find, 
that  at  the  time  Menno  first  embraced  it,  it  existed  among 
the  numerous  German  Anabaptists,  but  not  among  the 
Waldenses  of  France  or  Bohemia,  wlio  were  then  univer- 
sally believers  in  infant  baptism,  and  were  in  fraternal 
communion  with  the  Lutheran  and  reformed  churches. 
These  Waldensian  Pedobaptists  moreover  declared,  that 
they  held  the  same  belief  which  their  fathers  had  main- 
tained for  several  centuries,  and  they  appealed  to  their  old 
books  to  make  good  their  assertions.  Nor  does  Ecclesias- 
tical history  appear  to  me  to  disprove  the  truth  of  their 
assertion.  There  were  indeed  various  mystical  sects, 
tinctured    more  or   less  with    Manichean  views,  in   the 


APPENDIX.  187 

twelfth  and  following  centuries,  who  rejected  all  water 
baptism,  on  much  the  same  grounds  as  the  Quakers  still 
do;  and  some  of. these  assailed  infant  baptism  especially, 
as  being  peculiarly  unsuitable  and  absurd.  There  is  also 
pretty  good  evidence  that,  early  in  the  twelfth  century, 
Peter  de  Brays,  and  his  successor  Henry,  with  their  fol- 
lowers, the  Petrobrussians  and  Henricians,  did  at  first 
reject  infant  baptism,  without  discarding  all  baptism. 
But  Peter  Waldo  arose  soon  after,  and  gave  birth  to  the 
proper  Waldensiaus  ;  and  we  hear  no  more  of  the  Petro- 
brussians and  Henricians.  They  probably  gave  up  their 
opposition  to  infant  baptism."  See  Leger's  Gen.  Hist, 
of  the  Churches  of  the  Waldenses  ;  Jo.  Paul  Perrin's 
Hist,  of  the  Waldenses;  Wall's  Hist,  of  Infant  Baptism, 
P.  ii.  chap.  7;  and  Milner's  Ecc.   Hist.  Vol.  iii.  p.  426. 


[Note   K.] 

It  has  been  said  that  the  infant  children  of  Jewish  pa- 
rents were  church  members  in  full  communion,  and  were 
taken,  with  their  parents,  to  the  Passover  and  other  festi- 
vals. (See  Judson's  Sermon,  p.  39.)  But  this,  we  have 
good  reason  to  believe,  was  not  the  case.  When  our 
Saviour  was  twelve  years  old,  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to 
the  Passover,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  feast.  Luke 
ii.  4:2.  The  most  respectable  commentators,  and  others, 
decide,  that  this  was  as  early  as  the  Jewish  children  were 
permitted  to  be  present  on  such  occasions. 

•Hyrcanus  in  Josephus.  "  The  law  forbids  the  son 
to  cat  of  the  sacrifice,  before  he  has  come  to  the  temple, 
and  there  presented  an  offering  to  God."* 

Calvin.  "  The  Passover,  which  has  been  succeeded 
by  the  sacred  supper,  did  not  admit  guests  of  all  descrip- 
tions promiscuously,  but  was  rightly  eaten  only  by  those 
-who  were  of  sufficient  age  to  be  able  to  inquire  into  its 
meaning.'  t 

Bp.  Patrick.  "  When  children  were  twelve  years  old, 
their  parents  were  bound  to  bring  them  to  the  temple  at 

*  Antiq.  Lib.  xii.  Cap.  iv.  Sect.  8. 
f  Institutes,  Lib.  iv.  Cap.  xvi.  Sec.  30. 


188  APPENDIX. 

the  Passover,  where,  seeing  what  was  done,   they  would 
be  led  to  inquire,  "  What  mean  ye  by  these  things?"* 

Poole.  "  Children,  at  the  age  of  twelve  years,  were 
brought  by  their  parents  to  the  temple  ;  and  from  that 
time,  they  began  to  eat  of  the  Passover  and  other  sacri- 
fices.''i 

Rosenmuller.  "  The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  bring 
their  sons,  who  had  attained  to  their  twelfth  year,  to  the 
festivals  at  Jerusalem. "| 

Kuinoel.  "  Jt  was  a  custom  of  the  Jews  in  those 
times  (the  time  of  Christ)  that  youths  who  had  attained 
to  the  age  of  twelve  years,  should  be  brought  to  the  festi- 
vals at  Jerusalem. "|| 

Bloo.miiki.d.  "  The  custom  was,  not  to  take  them 
(the  Jewish  children)  to  the  Passover,  until  they  should 
have  attained  the  years  of  puberty,  a  period  which  the 
Rabbins  tell  us  was  fixed  at  the  twelfth  year,  when  they 
were  held  amenable  to  the  law,  and  were  called  sons  of 
precept.  Then  were  they  also  introduced  into  the 
church,  initiated  into  its  doctrines  and  ceremonies,  and 
consequently  were  taken  with  their  relations  to  Jerusalem 
at  the  festivals."^ 

The  following  extract  from  Dr.  Gill,  an  eminent  Bap- 
tist commentator,  is  much  to  the  purpose.  "  According 
to  the  maxims  of  the  Jews,  persons  were  not  obliged  to 
the  duties  of  the  law,  or  subject  to  the  penalties  of  it  in 
case  of  non-performance,  until  they  were,  a  female,  at 
the  age  of  tire /re  years  and  one  day,  and  a  male,  at  the 
age  of  thirteen  years  and  one  day."  "  They  were  not 
reckoned  adult  church  members  till  then;  nor  then 
either,  unless  worthy  persons  ;  for  so  it  is  said,  '  He  that 
is  worthy  is  called,  at  thirteen  years  of  age,  a  son  of 
the  congregation  of  Israel,'   that  is,   a  member   of  the 

CHURCH. "1| 


[Note   L.] 

"  Let  it  not  be  said,"  says  Dr.  Ward  la '.v,  "  that  parents 
may  have   a   sufficiently  strong   feeling  of  their  duty  to 

*  Com.  on  Ex.  xii.  t  Synopsis  on  Ex.  xii.  26. 

\  Com.  on  Luke  ii.  42.  ||  Com.  on  Luke  ii.  42. 

§  Critical  Digest  on  Luke  ii.  42.  IT  Com.  on  Luke  ii.  42. 


APPENDIX.  189 

their  children,  and  may  fulfil  that  duty  equally  well  with 
others,  although  they  do  not  see  the  Scripture  authority 
for  their  baptism.  I  do  not  deny,  that  a  Baptist  may  be 
exemplary  in  the  Christian  tuition  of  his  family,  and  that 
many  a  Pedobaptist  may  be  very  much  the  contrary.  But 
this  is  not  the  question.  I  can  conceive  of  a  Christian, 
from  certain  conscientious  but  unscriptural  and  ground- 
less scruples,  living  for  successive  years  in  the  neglect  of 
the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  supper,  and  yet,  to  all  ap- 
pearance, influenced  as  much  as  others,  in  his  general 
character,  by  the  habitual  remembrance  of  his  Redeemer. 
We  should  never  infer  from  such  a  case,  that  the  ordi- 
nance was  useless.  Neither  ought  we  in  the  other.  If 
God  has  given  promises  to  his  people  and  their  seed, 
promises  fitted  to  stimulate  believing  parents  to  the  ful- 
filment of  their  sacred  trust,  and  has  instituted  an  ordi- 
nance in  which  these  promises  are  recognized  and  pledg- 
ed to  them,  it  does  not  become  us  to  neglect  the  gracious 
and  pleasing  rite,  on  the  ground  that  we  can  keep  the 
promises  sufficiently  well  in  mind  without  it.  It  is  kind 
in  that  God  who  "  knoweth  our  frame,"  not  only  to  give 
us  his  word,  but  to  embody,  as  it  were,  that  word  to  our 
senses,  to  -confirm  it  to  our  faith,  and  to  impress  it  upon 
our  memories  and  hearts,  by  significant  outward  institu- 
tions."— Dissertation  on  Infant  Baptism,  p.  140. 


[Note  M.] 

"  When  the  Apostle,  in  his  epistles,  addressing  himself 
to  the  churches,  introduces  the  subject  of  the  instruction 
and  spiritual  care  of  children,  it  is  evident,  that  he  de- 
volves the  important  charge,  not  upon  the  associated  body 
of  believers,  but  on  the  parents  amongst  them  to  whom 
the  children  belonged.  The  very  address,  it  is  true,  to 
children,  as  connected  with  the  community  of  God's  peo- 
ple, testifies  the  interest  felt  in  them  by  the  Apostle  him- 
self, and  contains  a  virtual  admonition  to  the  churches, 
to  take  care  that  they  were  not  neglected.  By  connect- 
ing this  with  the  immediately-subjoined  charge  to  pa- 
rents, we  are  naturally  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  the 
principal  way  in  which  the  care  of  the  churches  for  the 


190  APPENDIX. 

spiritual  interest  of  the  children  connected  with  them 
ought  to  show  itself,  is  their  seeing  to  it  that  the  parents 
discharge  their  duty  faithfully.  The  parents  have,  by 
apostolic  authority,  as  well  as  by  the  dictate  of  nature, 
the  immediate  charge  of  the  children  ;  and  the  church, 
by  the  same  divine  authority,  has  the  immediate  oversight 
of  the  parents.  The  discipline  of  the  churches  ought 
certainly  to  be  considered  as  extending  to  every  descrip- 
tion of  sin.  The  violation,  or  neglect,  of  the  parental 
trust,  is  a  sin,  of  which  cognizance  ought  to  be  taken,  as 
well  as  of  others.  If  parents,  u  ho  are  members  of  a 
church,  are  allowed  to  go  on  in  sucli  violation  and  neg- 
lect, the  church  is  chargeable  with  an  omission  of  duty. 
"  Bring  up  your  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord,"  is  as  plain  and  explicit  a  command,  as 
"  Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  or  "  Thou  shalt  not  take  the 
name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain."  The  violation  of 
the  one  may  not  be  of  so  easy  detection,  as  that  of  the 
others.  There  may  even,  in  certain  cases,  be  circum- 
stances of  delicacy  and  difficulty,  that  require  any  cogniz- 
ance of  parental  conduct  to  be  gone  about  with  great 
prudence,  and  cautious  discrimination.  But  the  princi- 
ple of  discipline  is,  in  both  cases,  the  same.  We  must 
not  allow  sin  to  be  committed,  and  persisted  in,  without 
endeavoring,  by  scriptural  means,  to  bring  the  offender  to 
repentance.  And,  surely,  there  is  no  sin  which  it  is  of 
more  consequence  to  have  corrected  by  repentance,  than 
one  which  affects  the  best  interest  of  the  rising  genera- 
tion, and  thus  tends  deeply  to  injure  the  prosperity  of  the 
church,  and  the  cause  and  glory  of  Christ." — Wardlaic's 
Dissertation  on  Infant  Baptism,  pp.  155,  E56. 


